Re: Best practice for accepting TCP connections on multicore?

On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 12:06 -0400, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 7 June 2014 10:19, Igor Mozolevsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 7 June 2014 01:53, Dirk Engling <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014, Daniel Janzon wrote:
> >>
> >>  Is there any better way than doing the accept() call in one thread and
> >>> then
> >>> dispatch it to a thread on another core with any user space method?
> >>>
> >>
> > See C10K problem [1].
> >
> >
> > Why use accept() and not kevent()? You need to keep it portable?
> >>
> >
> > Has anyone rebutted the threads better than events paper[2] yet?
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html
> >
> > 2.
> > https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/vonbehren/vonbehren.pdf
> 
> Not likely; but that paper talks about a threading model that isn't
> currently in use in popular UNIX operating systems. It also compares a
> lightweight thread implementation with a lightweight server to an
> event driven system with worker threads that acted pretty badly,
> causing extremely bad memory use and context switching.
> 
> We've all gotten better at programming since then.

Yeah, when I glanced at the link and saw it was a cite of a 2003 paper,
my gut reaction was "Yeah, it has been rebutted by 11 years of everyone
just getting on with their lives and evolving absolutely everything that
was tested into something completely different now."

-- Ian


_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"