Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: zero-copy TCP | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 04 Sep 2000 17:11:05 +0200 |
| |
>>>>> "Ingo" == Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
Ingo> 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.
Ingo> the basic fragment type introduced by the TUX changes is a Ingo> 'struct skb_frag', which has csum, size, *page, page_offset, Ingo> frag_done, *data and *private fields - this is more than normal Ingo> kiovecs offer. But i think kiovecs can be extended to do all Ingo> this (if Stephen & everybody else agrees), i just didnt want to Ingo> touch it for the time being.
I'd love to see this transferred to kiobufs, I'd prefer not to see yet another structure introduced ;-)
At OLS we discussed a design for this, I think the consencus was to keep the data field in the old skb and allow this to be used by the old driver (receive path) and for building headers for tx packets. Then one can either optionally do a linearized skb with everything in the data field for the old hardware or stick pointers to data in a kiobuf.
I set up a mailing list for these discussions at linux-fastio@sunsite.auc.dk (linux-fastio-request@sunsite.auc.dk) to subscribe. It's been fairly quiet so far, but I'd like to see more action.
Ok, I'll go read your code next.
Jes - 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/
|  |