From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265154AbUEYWUC (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 18:20:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265170AbUEYWT6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 18:19:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:32910 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265161AbUEYWT0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2004 18:19:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 00:20:32 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: "David S. Miller" Cc: akpm@osdl.org, riel@redhat.com, andrea@suse.de, torvalds@osdl.org, phyprabab@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 4g/4g for 2.6.6 Message-ID: <20040525222031.GA11436@elte.hu> References: <20040525141622.49e86eb9.akpm@osdl.org> <20040525214817.GA21112@elte.hu> <20040525150916.6f385bc9.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040525150916.6f385bc9.davem@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.26.8-itk2 (ELTE 1.1) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.65 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David S. Miller wrote: > > hm, 1.5K pretty much seems to be the standard. Plus large frames can be > > scatter-gathered via fragmented skbs. Seldom is there a need for a large > > skb to be linear. > > Unfortunately TSO with non-sendfile apps makes huge 64K SKBs get > built. hm, shouldnt we disable TSO in this case - or is it a win even in this case? Ingo