From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:35:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:35:21 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:3456 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 18:35:15 -0400 From: "David S. Miller" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15159.48229.326223.682824@pizda.ninka.net> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) To: Will Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] skb destructor enhancement idea In-Reply-To: <20010625140613.A17207@egregious.net> In-Reply-To: <20010618134644.A5938@egregious.net> <20010618145331.A32166@wacko.asicdesigners.com> <20010621161349.A27654@egregious.net> <20010625140613.A17207@egregious.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 13) "Crater Lake" XEmacs Lucid Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Will writes: > We are currently using this change in a low-level packet monitoring module so we can > allocate our own packet memory and get called back when the skb is done moving > through the stack. It seems like it should be useful to allow network drivers to > implement their own device-specific memory management and thus reduce mem copying > overhead, too. > > Any driver people want to try it out and see if they can make their driver use it to > reduce copying? > > Any comments on the idea in general? I think the idea totally stinks. It puts a new shared cache line (the spinlock) into the hot path of SKB allocation and freeing on SMP. Add an ifdef and the knobs you need to the skb struct directly just like netfilter does. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com