I have submitted this patchset from Version 1 to Version 7 already in the past few months. Here is the link to the patchset: http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2011/05/28/ I am working on V8 now. Thanks Shirley On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 16:35 -0700, David Miller wrote: > 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
