From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: UDP "accept" proposed Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:52:25 +0200 Message-ID: <51C02DD9.3050308@redhat.com> References: <51C01EDA.30705@openvpn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: James Yonan Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14618 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754396Ab3FRJw2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:52:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51C01EDA.30705@openvpn.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/18/2013 10:48 AM, James Yonan wrote: [...] > This is a disaster from a performance perspective because you can't take a UDP server that > binds to a single port and efficiently scale it up across multiple threads or processors > because you must operate off a single socket. [...] > But this would be a huge performance win for UDP servers (I'm thinking about OpenVPN in > particular) because making the kernel smarter about dispatching UDP datagrams would make it > much easier to develop scalable UDP servers on Linux. So SO_REUSEPORT that was added in 3.9 by Tom Herbert wouldn't help in your case (+ f.e. steering flows to CPUs locally) ? https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/