[systemd-devel] [PATCH 4/4] core: lazy distribute for Distribute pools

[Lennart Poettering]

On Sat, 16.11.13 13:18, Shawn Landden (shawn at churchofgit.com) wrote:

> ---
>  man/systemd.socket.xml                | 9 +++++++++
>  src/core/dbus-socket.c                | 2 ++
>  src/core/load-fragment-gperf.gperf.m4 | 1 +
>  src/core/socket.c                     | 7 ++++++-
>  src/core/socket.h                     | 1 +
>  5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/systemd.socket.xml b/man/systemd.socket.xml
> index 4a2189b..fd6ec69 100644
> --- a/man/systemd.socket.xml
> +++ b/man/systemd.socket.xml
> @@ -530,6 +530,15 @@
>                          </varlistentry>
>  
>                          <varlistentry>
> +                                <term><varname>LazyDistribute=</varname></term>
> +                                <listitem><para>Takes an boolean
> +                                value. If true, Distribute=n workers will not be spawned
> +                                simultameously, but one at a time while connections come it
> +                                until n are running. Because of the nature of SO_REUSEPORT workers are
> +                                spawned at an exponentially decreasing rate to the number of incoming connections.</para></listitem>
> +                        </varlistentry>
> +
> +                        <varlistentry>

Hmm, so I think support for SO_REUSEPORT should just be a special case
of the Distribute= logic. i.e. When Distribute= is set but ReusePort is
off, then we'd pass the same original listening socket to all services
we spawn. If Distribute is set but ReusePort is on then we'd create a
new socket when we want to spawn a new instance, and simply bind it to
the same sockaddr as the original one.

Thinking about this: I have the suspicion that LazyDistribute shouldn't
be an option but the normal and only behaviour...

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat