On 9/22/06, Andrea Bittau <a.bittau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:30:21AM +0100, Gerrit Renker wrote: > 1/ TX Buffering: set size of TX ring buffer via socket option. The size of the TX buffer is interesting in applications which want to do their own queue management. That is, real-time applications that would prefer dropping certain packets and re-order other packets based on the state of the session. We are used to the standard UNIX "push" model where you shove stuff in the kernel via write. Perhaps a different architecture would be for the TX buffer to be in user-land and the kernel to pull from it. There is a lot of overhead [context-switch] added, but there might be a good way of coding this. By doing so, the application chooses exactly what to send and when. Perhaps this is equivalent to a 0 TX buffer size. Alternatively, there could be an API for managing the TX buffer in the kernel, or maybe tagging packets with an expiry time or something. The bottom line is, that other than just regulating the TX buffer size, there might be smarter things that we could do and may turn out to be useful. Giving the application the power to control what is sent and when, in accordance with the CCID, will allow the application to make use of all of DCCP's benefits.
I'm not sure whether Andrea is alluding to my code once again or not here. In my patches I have online I do deliberate packet reordering and expiry for experimental purposes. The difference is that mine is done in kernel space rather than user space. -- Ian McDonald Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4 Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com WAND Network Research Group Department of Computer Science University of Waikato New Zealand - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
