On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Nagendra Singh Tomar wrote: > > > even for devices that do Rx checksum verification (and hence allow us to > > leave the data payload untouched). If we can have a strategy in which we > > keep first 128 bytes say (precisely max possible header size) in a > > cacheable region and the rest, that is pure data, in uncacheable region, > > we can see some gain. > > This should not be difficult if using non-linear sk_buff. You are right, but when I was writing this mail I had non-SG devices in mind. Even for a regular ethernet frame of 1500 bytes we can gain a lot if can put the data portion in noncacheable region. > > > The most important question: Is it worth all this ? DO we gain much if we > > prevent pollution of the data cache, by doing these tricks. > > I am doubtful, but I am possibly biased from working a lot with iptables > and often accessing the payload while the packet is forwarded for NAT > etc.. but maybe. If the data payload has to be touched in anyway then putting it in noncacheable area will turn to be a killer. > > Regards > Henrik > -- -- You have moved the mouse. Windows must be restarted for the changes to take effect. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
