On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> For the last time, do not top post on netdev.
Sorry about that.
>
> On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 17:15 -0700, Code Soldier1 wrote:
>> I am not suggesting that we do not do cache alignment. That is
>> required for performa
without any adverse effect, may I increase skb->cb by 8 bytes ?
If not then may I increase skb_shared_info -- However that would have
to be by 64bytes.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Please do not top post on netdev
>
> On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 16:26 -0700, Code So
erhaps I am missing something.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 10:34 -0700, Code Soldier1 wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I am sure there is a reason for the current sizes of these structures,
>> However the reason is not obvio
Hi Folks,
I am sure there is a reason for the current sizes of these structures,
However the reason is not obvious to me. So please help me understand.
Currently the size of sk_buff on an x86_64 system is 232 bytes -- Why
is that. I expected it to be a multiple of 32/64 as they are the most
commo
