| To: | Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16? |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 9 Jul 2003 17:53:55 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030709152553.GB15293@gtf.org> |
| References: | <20030709152553.GB15293@gtf.org> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:25:53 -0400 Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I knew this at one time, but have forgotten it :) > > What is the reason for adding 16 to the dev_alloc_skb length? > (and skb_reserve of the same length) For the skb_reserve alignment to align the IP header. 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. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16?, Hen, Shmulik |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16?, Jeff Garzik |
| Previous by Thread: | reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16?, Jeff Garzik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: reasons for dev_alloc_skb +16?, Jeff Garzik |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |