[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFAF0AE4C2.388D2428-ON652572D8.002E0FFF-652572D8.002EF597@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:02:55 +0530
From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits
Hi Andy,
ak@...e.de wrote on 05/11/2007 02:35:05 PM:
> You don't need that. You can just use the normal next/prev pointers.
> In general it's a good idea to lower lock overhead etc., the VM has
> used similar tricks very successfully in the past.
Does this mean each skb should be for the same connection if next/prev
is used ?
> Another problem is that this setup typically requires the aggregate
> packets to be from the same connection. Otherwise you will only
> safe a short trip into the stack until the linked packet would need
> to be split again to pass to multiple sockets. With that the scheme
> probably helps much less.
I guess you meant this for receives only. On the send side, packets
for different sockets can be linked and sent together, right ?
> Or you could do this only if multiple packets belong to the same
> single connection (basically with a one hit cache); but then it would
But for sends, why does same or different connection matter ? There is
no aggregating of skbs.
Thanks,
- KK
-
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