lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Introduce to batch variants of accept() and epoll_ctl() syscall
于 2012年06月15日 12:29, Changli Gao 写道:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Li Yu<raise.sail@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We encounter a performance problem in a large scale computer
>> cluster, which needs to handle a lot of incoming concurrent TCP
>> connection requests.
>>
>> The top shows the kernel is most cpu hog, the testing is simple,
>> just a accept() -> epoll_ctl(ADD) loop, the ratio of cpu util sys% to
>> si% is about 2:5.
>>
>> I also asked some experienced webserver/proxy developers in my team
>> for suggestions, it seem that behavior of many userland programs already
>> called accept() multiple times after it is waked up by
>> epoll_wait(). And the common action is adding the fd that accept()
>> return into epoll interface by epoll_ctl() syscall then.
>>
>> Therefore, I think that we'd better to introduce to batch variants of
>> accept() and epoll_ctl() syscall, just like sendmmsg() or recvmmsg().
>>
>> For accept(), we may need a new syscall, it may like this,
>>
>> struct accept_result {
>> int fd;
>> struct sockaddr addr;
>> socklen_t addr_len;
>> };
>>
>> int maccept4(int fd, int flags, int nr_accept_result, struct
>> accept_result *results);
>>
>> For epoll_ctl(), there are two means to extend it, I prefer to extend
>> current interface instead of introduce to new syscall. We may introduce
>> to a new flag EPOLL_CTL_BATCH. If userland call epoll_ctl() with this
>> flag set, the meaning of last two arguments of epoll_ctl() change, .e.g:
>>
>> struct batch_epoll_event batch_event[] = {
>> {
>> .fd = a_newsock_fd;
>> .epoll_event = { ... };
>> },
>> ...
>> };
>>
>> ret = epoll_ctl(fd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD|EPOLL_CTL_BATCH, nr_batch_events,
>> batch_events);
>>
>
> I think it is good idea. Would you please implement a prototype and
> give some numbers? This kind of data may help selling this idea.
> Thanks.
>

Of course, I think that implementing them should not be a hard work :)

Em. I really do not know whether it is necessary to introduce to a new
syscall here. An alternative solution to add new socket option to handle
such batch requirement, so applications also can detect if kernel has
this extended ability with a easy getsockopt() call.

Any way, I am going to try to write a prototype first.

Thanks

Yu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-15 08:21    [W:0.598 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site