[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070705130012.GB4759@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 15:00:12 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...-lyon.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Divy Le Ray <divy@...lsio.com>
Subject: Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:28:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi, Jarek.
>
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski (jarkao2@...pl) wrote:
> > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
> > private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning,
> > copying or adding new fields for private infos?
>
> There should not be any additional allocations, since they are very
> slow, that part of mbuf is really horrible for performance - openbsd
> hackers removed additional allocation of mbuf tag in PF code during the
> last hackathon, which doubled its performance, that is why skb has only
> one control structure and data area, which incorporates additional
> control information, thus there is no need for multiple destructors.
Of course, my knowledge of this is far not enough, and maybe
I got this reversed, but from Andi's words I've understood
that linux prefers another (mixed) approach, so I've thought
such list should be a consequence...
Thanks,
Jarek P.
-
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