On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 02:25 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Note that on a router (ie most packets are not locally delivered), copybreak > is useless and expensive. > > But if most packets are locally delivered (on local TCP or UDP queues), then > copybreak is a win because less memory is taken by not yet read packets in > queues. > > Allocating a 256 bytes block instead of a full 4096 page if a 16 factor. > > > For a machine doing some p2p trafic (ie receiving lot of small UDP frames or > handling a lot of TCP sockets), copybreak is definitly a good feature. > > So maybe an ethtool tune should be added to set the copybreak limit on each > nic. AFAIK tg3 uses a fixed size copybreak limit. >
I would rather use more memory and have better performance (isnt this the philosophy behind mbuffs vs skbuffs?;->). Of course, being a fair linux-zen, i would also want to provide options to someone else wanting to save on memory (thats why i was asking for the two features to be optional;->) cheers, jamal - 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
