lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: NETIF_F_SG question
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

> > You get zerocopy, yes. :-) No HW cksum, no zerocopy.
>
> OK, but it should be easy to remove HW cksum as a condition to do zerocopy?

Nope. You're looking at this the wrong way: the goal is not zero copy, but
zero data access by CPU. Once you realize that, it's clear that SG alone
is no good.

This is not necessarily the only approach, but it is the current approach
in the Linux IPv4 stack. It's not worth the effort to re-engineer the code
in order to support the fast-disappearing hardware which supports SG but
not cksums.

> zerocopy without requiring HW cksums only OR could for instance the forwarding
> procdure also benefit from SG without requiring HW cksums?

The forwarding procedure is already dealing with linear buffers because
99.99% of the network cards on the market receive packets into one linear
buffer. So again SG is useless for that.

Ion

--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.050 / U:9.700 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site