| To: | ak@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16? |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:20:12 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030709175355.422545b5.ak@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030709152553.GB15293@xxxxxxx> <20030709175355.422545b5.ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:53:55 +0200 But it's not clear it is still a good idea because it leads to cache line misalignment of the beginning of the packet, forcing the card to do a costly Read-Modify-Write cycle. Only "dumb cards" do that, smart ones rewind to the beginning of the current cache line and ask for the whole thing instead of pieces. The +16 is actually needed to align the first hunk of the outgoing packet so we can do a 16-byte aligned memcpy of the hard-header cache as we build the packet. Jeff, look at LL_RESERVED_SPACE() and the comment above it in include/linux/netdevice.h |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2.5.74] convert apne to dynamic allocation, Stephen Hemminger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Bug in Linux 2.5.74 IPv6 routing, James Morris |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16?, Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | RE: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16?, Hen, Shmulik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |