On Sat, 16.11.13 13:18, Shawn Landden (sh...@churchofgit.com) wrote: > --- > man/systemd.socket.xml | 9 +++++++++ > src/core/dbus-socket.c | 2 ++ > src/core/load-fragment-gperf.gperf.m4 | 1 + > src/core/socket.c | 7 ++++++- > src/core/socket.h | 1 + > 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/man/systemd.socket.xml b/man/systemd.socket.xml > index 4a2189b..fd6ec69 100644 > --- a/man/systemd.socket.xml > +++ b/man/systemd.socket.xml > @@ -530,6 +530,15 @@ > </varlistentry> > > <varlistentry> > + > <term><varname>LazyDistribute=</varname></term> > + <listitem><para>Takes an boolean > + value. If true, Distribute=n workers will > not be spawned > + simultameously, but one at a time while > connections come it > + until n are running. Because of the nature > of SO_REUSEPORT workers are > + spawned at an exponentially decreasing rate > to the number of incoming connections.</para></listitem> > + </varlistentry> > + > + <varlistentry>
Hmm, so I think support for SO_REUSEPORT should just be a special case of the Distribute= logic. i.e. When Distribute= is set but ReusePort is off, then we'd pass the same original listening socket to all services we spawn. If Distribute is set but ReusePort is on then we'd create a new socket when we want to spawn a new instance, and simply bind it to the same sockaddr as the original one. Thinking about this: I have the suspicion that LazyDistribute shouldn't be an option but the normal and only behaviour... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
