On 05-07-2007 12:08, Andi Kleen wrote: ... > The traditional standpoint was that having your own large skb pools > is not recommended because you won't interact well with the > rest of the system running low on memory and you tieing up > memory. > > Essentially you would recreate all the problems traditional Unix > systems have with fixed size mbuf pools. Linux always used a more > dynamic and flexible allocate-only-as-you-need approach even when it > can have a little more overhead in managing IOMMUs etc.
I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning, copying or adding new fields for private infos? Regards, Jarek P. - 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
