lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: zero-copy TCP
    Hi,

    On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:29:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    >
    > On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
    >
    > > I did the same for fragment RX some months ago (simple fragment lists
    > > that were copy-checksummed to user space). Overall it is probably
    > > better to use a kiovec, because that can be more easily used in nfsd
    > > and sendfile.
    >
    > the basic fragment type introduced by the TUX changes is a 'struct
    > skb_frag', which has csum, size, *page, page_offset, frag_done, *data and
    > *private fields - this is more than normal kiovecs offer. But i think
    > kiovecs can be extended to do all this (if Stephen & everybody else
    > agrees), i just didnt want to touch it for the time being.

    I don't want to extend kiobufs for that sort of thing, since the
    entire point of having kiobufs is to have a uniform container with
    which to pass information between different kernel components. If you
    need more data, you'd do something like the SGI kiobuf-based block IO
    stack does --- use a dedicated struct request, but use a pointer to a
    kiobuf as the data location within that request struct.

    In principle I'd think it would be a lot easier to add a kiovec
    pointer to an skbuff than to extend kiobufs to be suitable for the
    networking stack (and we had a BOF on this at OLS --- it seemed quite
    feasible).

    --Stephen
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:2.483 / U:0.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site