[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:40:05 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tun: fix aio
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:48:13PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:04:55 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:48:37AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > Sure. Here it is: much smaller, but slightly slower.
> > >
> > > Which could probably be fixed by using an on-stack version for a iovec
> > > of less than a certain size...
> >
> > I agree that for large message sizes the malloc would probably be
> > dwarfed by the cost of memory copy. However a large iovec might pass a
> > small message, might it not?
>
> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Something like:
>
> struct iovec smalliov[512 / sizeof(struct iovec)];
>
> if (count < ARRAY_SIZE(smalliov)) {
> iv = smalliov;
> } else {
> iv = kmalloc(...)
> }
>
> ...
>
> if (iv != smalliov)
> kfree(iv);
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
What I was trying to say is that this special-cases iovecs with count >
64. But I think that such iovecs might be used to still pass around
relatively small messages (theoretically as small as 64 bytes) and then
the overhead of the kmalloc/kfree is noticeable.
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists