Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > [...] However, I think the userspace API change is less > > > clear since epoll_wait() doesn't currently have an > > > 'input' events argument as epoll_ctl() does. > > > > ... but the change would be a bit clearer and somewhat > > more flexible: LIFO or FIFO queueing, right? > > > > But having the queueing model as part of the epoll > > context is a legitimate approach as well. > > Btw., there's another optimization that the networking code > already does when processing incoming packets: waking up a > thread on the local CPU, where the wakeup is running. > > Doing the same on epoll would have real scalability > advantages where incoming events are IRQ driven and are > distributed amongst multiple CPUs.
Right. One thing in the back of my mind has been to have CPU affinity for epoll. Either having everything in an epoll set favor a certain CPU or even having affinity down to the epitem level (so concurrent epoll_wait callers end up favoring the same epitems). I'm not convinced this series is worth doing without a comparison against my previous suggestion to use a dedicated thread which only makes blocking accept4 + EPOLL_CTL_ADD calls. The majority of epoll events in a typical server should not be for listen sockets, so I'd rather not bloat existing code paths for them. For web servers nowadays, the benefits of maintaining long-lived connections to avoid handshakes is even more beneficial with increasing HTTPS and HTTP2 adoption; so listen socket events should become less common. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
