From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> >> 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 kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
