From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 7 00:53:10 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A486A16C for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 00:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from elektropost.org (elektropost.org [217.115.13.199]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F41236B for ; Sat, 7 Jun 2014 00:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 20916 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2014 00:53:07 -0000 Received: from elektropost.org (HELO elektropost.org) (erdgeist@erdgeist.org) by elektropost.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 7 Jun 2014 00:53:07 -0000 Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 02:53:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Dirk Engling To: Daniel Janzon Subject: Re: Best practice for accepting TCP connections on multicore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 00:53:10 -0000 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? Why use accept() and not kevent()? You need to keep it portable? erdgeist