[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1

To: "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" <blah@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PLEASE-TESTME] Zerocopy networking patch, 2.4.0-1
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:12:24 +0000
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, riel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010109114407.5051E-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from blah@xxxxxxxxx on Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:30:39PM -0500
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101091720030.4491-100000@e2> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1010109114407.5051E-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2i

On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 12:30:39PM -0500, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > this is why i ment that *right now* kiobufs are not suited for networking,
> > at least the way we do it. Maybe if kiobufs had the same kind of internal
> > structure as sk_frag (ie. array of (page,offset,size) triples, not array
> > of pages), that would work out better.
> That I can agree with, and it would make my life easier since I really
> only care about the completion of an entire io, not the individual
> fragments of it.

Right, but this is why the kiobuf IO functions are supposed to accept
kiovecs (ie. counted vectors of kiobuf *s, just like ll_rw_block
receives buffer_heads).

The kiobuf is supposed to be a unit of memory, not of IO.  You can map
several different kiobufs from different sources and send them all
together to brw_kiovec() as a single IO.


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