From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 17:16:31 +0200
> On Sunday 16 April 2006 14:56, Hisham Kotry wrote:
> > > Linux 2.0 did something like this, but that was removed for good
> > > reasons. Now TCP always clones skbs before sending it out.
> >
> > Do you remember what those
On Sunday 16 April 2006 14:56, Hisham Kotry wrote:
> > Where would that tag list be stored if you want to remove the
> > 40 bytes of ->cb?
>
> I apologize if I wasn't clear, the tag list would go in a new
> skb->tags field replacing the existsing skb->cb array, so the skb
> would lose 40-sizeof(voi
> Where would that tag list be stored if you want to remove the
> 40 bytes of ->cb?
I apologize if I wasn't clear, the tag list would go in a new
skb->tags field replacing the existsing skb->cb array, so the skb
would lose 40-sizeof(void*) bytes wich seems reasonable to me.
> Linux 2.0 did someth
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:22:01PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> And optimizing for uncommon cases (not TCP) doesn't seem too useful.
There are servers that do tens of megabits of UDP these days (think VoIP, or
in my case, DNS), so it not that uncommon.
Bert
--
http://www.PowerDNS.com
On Saturday 15 April 2006 13:17, Hisham Kotry wrote:
> I just read David S. Miller's skb redundancy page and in it he seems to
> suggest
> taking an approach similar to that of BSD's mbufs to reduce the skb's
> size. I was going to do some janitor work on the network stack and I
> thought that may
