Hi On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Andy Lutomirski: > >> At the risk of opening a can of worms, wouldn't this be much more >> useful if you could share a pool between multiple connections? > > They would also be useful to reduce context switches when receiving > data from all kinds of descriptors. At present, when polling, you > receive notification, and then you have to call into the kernel, > again, to actually fetch the data and associated information. poll(2) and friends cannot return data for changed descriptors. I think a single trap for each KDBUS_CMD_MSG_RECV is acceptable. If this turns out to be a bottleneck, we can provide bulk-operations in the future. Anyway, I don't see how a _shared_ pool would change any of this? > kernel could also queue the data for one specific recipient, > addressing the same issue that SO_REUSEPORT tries to solve (on poll > notification, the kernel does not know which recipient will eventually > retrieve the data, so it has to notify and wake up all of them). We already queue data only for the addressed recipients. We *do* know all recipients of a message at poll-notification time. We only wake up recipients that actually got a message queued. Not sure how this is related to SO_REUSEPORT. Can you elaborate on your optimizations? Thanks David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
