[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110628.163508.222352070705159851.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mashirle@...ibm.com
Cc: mst@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, avi@...hat.com,
arnd@...db.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/4 net-next] skbuff: Add userspace zero-copy
buffers in skb
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:51:32 -0700
> On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 15:54 -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
>> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 08:45:10 -0700
>>
>> > To support skb zero-copy, a pointer is needed to add to skb share
>> info.
>> > Do you agree with this approach? If not, do you have any other
>> > suggestions?
>>
>> I really can't form an opinion unless I am shown the complete
>> implementation, what this give us in return, what the impact is, etc.
..
> You can see the overall CPU saved 50% w/i zero-copy.
>
> The impact is every skb allocation consumed one more pointer in skb
> share info, and a pointer check in skb release when last reference is
> gone.
>
> For skb clone, skb expand private head and skb copy, it still keeps copy
> the buffers to kernel, so we can avoid user application, like tcpdump to
> hold the user-space buffers too long.
Ok, now show me the "complete implementation". I'm as interested in
the code as I am in the numbers, that's why I asked for both.
--
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