Best practice for accepting TCP connections on multicore?

[Igor Mozolevsky]

On 7 June 2014 17:42, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 12:06 -0400, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On 7 June 2014 10:19, Igor Mozolevsky <igor at hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On 7 June 2014 01:53, Dirk Engling <erdgeist at erdgeist.org> 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."
>

I can't possibly argue with that sort of scientific method, but back in
2008, someone did some stuff with Java and got interesting results[1].


1. http://www.mailinator.com/tymaPaulMultithreaded.pdf

-- 
Igor M.