On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:49:53AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:35:51AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:21:27AM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > > > Pollers distinct from frontend? > > > > > > Can I bind pollers to CPU? > > > > > > > > > > Each thread has its own poller. Since you map threads to CPUs you > > > > > indeed > > > > > have one poller per CPU. > > > > > > > > Each pooler pool all sockets or only sockets from binded frontends? > > > > > > All sockets. All FDs in fact. This is normal, it's an event loop, it needs > > > to be notified of *any* event (fd activity, signal). > > > > I am mean in case of dedicated listen socket pooler also can be > > dedicated, for load planing. For example: > > > > frontend tcp1 > > bind x.x.x.206:443 > > bind-process 1/9-1/16 > > mode tcp > > > > threads 1-8 don't need any events from this socket at all. > > That's exactly what happens.
No, as I see. After start load on this sockets I am see CPU use on CPU's 0-7 too. All CPU rise load simultaneous. May be I am miss some in config? > > This is also reduce communication w/ kernel, rise locality of data. > > > > I mean locality accpeted socket only to one pooler will be good too. > > It's what is done, don't worry. Please take a look at the code, namely > fdtab[] in fd.h. You'll see a polled_mask and thread_mask for each fd, > used to know what thread needs knowledge of the fd and what thread's > poller currently polls the fd. > > Willy
