> First, the skb_header_cloned() patch I posted in another reply will
> get rid of copying due to clones. I've included it below for
> completeness.
>
> The next problem is to make sure there is enough space available. And
> all that's needed is some help from the bridging layer and some hooks
> into netdev_alloc_skb().
>
> On bridge transmit, it knows the input and output devices, and the
> requirements of LL header space on the transmit side.
>
> If the transmit requirements are not met for the received packet, we
> can tag the difference into the input netdev.
>
> Using that information we can allocate extra space in
> netdev_alloc_skb(), and do an skb_reserve().
>
> The only requirement is that the ethernet driver serving input packets
> uses netdev_alloc_skb(). The most important drivers already do, and
> those which do not are trivially converted.
>
> The following along with Johannes's needed_header et al. patch should
> take care of the overhead.
>
> If this proves to be a working solution, we can do something similar
> for IPv4 and IPv6 forwarding. At that point, we should make this
> "adjust input device extra space" a helper function that all of
> these spots can call.
This looks feasible, thanks for looking into it. But isn't, when the
bridge gives us a cloned skb, the complete header the complete data
since it won't be a fraglist skb? And then we copy it all anyway? That's
just for group addressed frames, of course, so still a lot better I
guess. The main point is getting enough headroom.
Also, should there be some sort of timer that resets the rx_alloc_extra
again so that when you bridge it once with p54 (needs heaps of headroom)
you don't suffer forever?
> @@ -255,11 +255,12 @@ struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device *dev,
> unsigned int length, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> int node = dev->dev.parent ? dev_to_node(dev->dev.parent) : -1;
> + unsigned int extra = dev->rx_alloc_extra + NET_SKB_PAD;
> struct sk_buff *skb;
>
> - skb = __alloc_skb(length + NET_SKB_PAD, gfp_mask, 0, node);
> + skb = __alloc_skb(length + extra, gfp_mask, 0, node);
> if (likely(skb)) {
> - skb_reserve(skb, NET_SKB_PAD);
> + skb_reserve(skb, extra);
Doesn't that break alignment though?
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
