From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:34:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:33:53 -0500 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:6528 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:33:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:33:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200101110433.UAA02297@pizda.ninka.net> From: "David S. Miller" To: mingo@elte.hu CC: jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com In-Reply-To: (message from Ingo Molnar on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:41:30 +0100 (CET)) Subject: Re: Updated zerocopy patch up on kernel.org In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:41:30 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar 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@redhat.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/