On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:02:10 -0700 "Caitlin Bestler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:59:19AM -0700, Caitlin Bestler > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>> Btw, how is it supposed to work without header split capabale > >>> hardware? > >> > >> Hardware that can classify packets is obviously capable of doing > >> header data separation, but that does not mean that it has to do so. > >> > >> If the host wants header data separation it's real value is that when > >> packets arrive in order that fewer distinct copies are required to > >> move the data to the user buffer (because separated data can be > >> placed back-to-back in a data-only ring). But that's an > >> optimization, it's not needed to make the idea worth doing, or even > >> necessarily in the first implementation. > > > > If there is dataflow, not flow of packets or flow of data > > with holes, it could be possible to modify recv() to just > > return the right pointer, so in theory userspace > > modifications would be minimal. > > With copy in place it completely does not differ from current > > design with copy_to_user() being used since memcpy() is just > > slightly faster than copy*user(). > > If the app is really ready to use a modified interface we might as well > just give them a QP/CQ interface. But I suppose "receive by pointer" > interfaces don't really stretch the sockets interface all that badly. > The key is that you have to decide how the buffer is released, > is it the next call? Or a separate call? Does releasing buffer > N+2 release buffers N and N+1? What you want to avoid > is having to keep a scoreboard of which buffers have been > released. > Please just use existing AIO interface. We don't need another interface. The number of interfaces increases the exposed bug surface geometrically. Which means for each new interface, it means testing and fixing bugs in every possible usage. > But in context, header/data separation would allow in order > packets to have the data be placed back to back, which > could allow a single recv to report the payload of multiple > successive TCP segments. So the benefit of header/data > separation remains the same, and I still say it's a optimization > that should not be made a requirement. The benefits of vj_channels > exist even without them. When the packet classifier runs on the > host, header/data separation would not be free. I want to enable > hardware offloads, not make the kernel bend over backwards > to emulate how hardware would work. I'm just hoping that we > can agree to let hardware do its work without being forced to > work the same way the kernel does (i.e., running down a long > list of arbitrary packet filter rules on a per packet basis). > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
