[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <494BDBFC.7060707@vlnb.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:38:04 +0300
From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC]: Support for zero-copy TCP transmit of user space data
Andi Kleen, on 12/19/2008 02:27 PM wrote:
> Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net> writes:
>> - Although usage of struct page to keep network related pointer might
>> look as a layering violation, it isn't. I wrote in
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/15/190 why.
>
> Sorry but extending struct page for this is really a bad idea because
> of the extreme memory overhead even when it's not used (which is a
> problem on distribution kernels) Find some other way to store this
> information. Even for patches with more general value it was not
> acceptable.
Sure, this is why I propose to disable that option by default in
distribution kernels, so it would produce no harm. ISCSI-SCST can work
in this configuration quite well too. People who need both iSCSI target
*and* fast working user space device handlers would simply enable that
option and rebuild the kernel. Rejecting this patch provides much worse
alternative: those people would also have to *patch* the kernel at
first, only then enable that option, then rebuild the kernel. (I'm
repeating it to make sure you didn't miss this my point; it was in the
part of my original message, which you cut out.)
Thanks,
Vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists