| To: | mingo@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Updated zerocopy patch up on kernel.org |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:33:16 -0800 |
| Cc: | jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101111138540.981-100000@e2> (message from Ingo Molnar on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:41:30 +0100 (CET)) |
| References: | <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101111138540.981-100000@e2> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:41:30 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > I'm actually considering making the SG w/o hwcsum situation illegal. i believe it might still make some limited sense for normal sendmsg() and higher MTUs (or 8k NFS) - we could copy & checksum stuff into the ->tcp_page if SG is possible and thus the SG capability improves the VM. (because we can allocate at PAGE_SIZE granularity.) Basically what your advocating for is to take advantage of SG-only devices when we have full control of the page contents. Sure this would work. But honestly the real gain from SG-only devices would be (as you know) the memory usage savings when sending a single static file object to several thousand clients. Later, David S. Miller davem@xxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: The networking code in Kernel 2.4, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: The networking code in Kernel 2.4, Hans Grobler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Updated zerocopy patch up on kernel.org, Ingo Molnar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Updated zerocopy patch up on kernel.org, kuznet |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |