netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Intel and TOE in the news

To: Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Intel and TOE in the news
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 21 Feb 2005 09:03:42 -0500
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>, Leonid Grossman <leonid.grossman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'rick jones'" <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, "'Alex Aizman'" <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20050221132844.GU31837@postel.suug.ch>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <20050220230713.GA62354@muc.de> <200502210332.j1L3WkDD014744@guinness.s2io.com> <20050221115006.GB87576@muc.de> <20050221132844.GU31837@postel.suug.ch>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Everything in the stack would have to be re-written not just that one
piece. 
The question is: Is it worth it? My experimentation shows, only in a few
speacilized cases.

cheers,
jamal

On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 08:28, Thomas Graf wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <20050221115006.GB87576@xxxxxx> 2005-02-21 12:50
> > The main problem is that someone has to go through all the protocol layers
> > and make sure they can process lists. Also it needs careful handling
> > in netfilter.
> 
> Special handling is also required for the ingress qdisc. The classifiers
> or tc_classify() must be changed to iterate over the lists and unlink
> the skbs if one of them is to be dropped. The mirred action must probably
> split the list after cloning the skbs. Given the lists are session based
> all session based qdiscs could benefit from this and enqueue/dequeue the
> lists rather than single skbs. Other qdiscs would have to split the lists
> but could return a new list upon dequeue.
> 
> 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>