[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20141126.154113.1689979442673394078.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:41:13 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: alexander.duyck@...il.com, alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 2/5] ethernet/intel: Use eth_skb_pad helper
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:01:13 -0800
[ I am still intrigued, CC:'ing Alexey ]
> On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 22:19 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:43:05 -0800
>>
>> > I believe I finally have an idea why we had various + 15 in skb
>> > allocations in TCP stack !
>>
>> It was so that you could do one level of tunneling with "for
>> free". Or that is my recollection.
>>
>> Those + 15 existed way before any of these padto() calls even
>> existed.
>
> Well, tunneling is added in front of the packet. Thats why we use
> MAX_TCP_HEADER.
>
> The +15 is in fact because TCP stack wanted to make sure the eventual
> padding (needing tailroom, not headroom) was possible...
>
> Note that ack packets never used the +15, but other packets did.
Alexey, do you remember exact reason for that +15 everywhere in TCP
packet allocation sizing?
I thought it was for headroom, but as Eric shows that's illogical,
it can only be for tailroom considerations.
--
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