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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.076 / U:3.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site