On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:49:41PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

Everything is possible, but do not complain because BPF went in the
kernel before your changes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I'm more asking for help to
try to elaborate the alternate solution. I understood well what my
proposal did because it was pretty straightforward, and the new one
I'll have to do is of an immense complexity for me by now, since it
will require learning a new language and finding doc on how all this
works together. But as I said I'm totally sold to the benefits it can
provide for large scale deployments and I'm well aware of the ugly
socket scan there was in the previous one.

+1 (all the work done on the listeners, including SO_REUSEPORT, and
until lately very much appreciated in any case!)

If you could share a pointer to some good starter documentation for this,
I would appreciate it. I really have no idea where to start from and the
only elements I found on the net didn't give a single hint regarding all
this :-/

+1

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 1:24 AM, David Miller wrote:

If we encapsulate this into libraries and helper wrappers, there is
no reason web server developers should be looking at these details
anyways.

++1

Please don't make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Not my intention, you guys know what's the better for the kernel and its APIs.
My concern is (was) admittedly due to my own lack of knowledge of
(e)BPF, hence how much of kernel internals I'd need to know to make
the SO_REUSEPORT work in my case.

But sure, any of the help suggested above would make it go away, I'll
stay tuned.