netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090203.164630.173080148.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:46:30 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	zbr@...emap.net, jarkao2@...il.com, w@....eu, dada1@...mosbay.com,
	ben@...s.com, mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 22:24:31 +1100

> Not necessarily.  Even if the hardware can only DMA into contiguous
> memory, we can always allocate a sufficient number of contiguous
> buffers initially, and then always copy them into fragmented skbs
> at receive time.  This way the contiguous buffers are never
> depleted.
> 
> Granted copying sucks, but this is really because the underlying
> hardware is badly designed.  Also copying is way better than
> not receiving at all due to memory fragmentation.

This scheme sounds very reasonable.
--
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