From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 03:22:21 +0200
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
> > 3) Clone the skb and have dev_queue_xmit_nit() consume it.
> >
> > That should actually be pretty easy.
>
> On second thought, thats not so great either. netdev_nit
> just globally signal
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 3) Clone the skb and have dev_queue_xmit_nit() consume it.
>
> That should actually be pretty easy.
On second thought, thats not so great either. netdev_nit
just globally signals that there are some taps, but we
don't know if they're interested in a specific packet.
-
To
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:17:59AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
> 3) Clone the skb and have dev_queue_xmit_nit() consume it.
>
> That should actually be pretty easy.
Unfortunately that would mean an unconditional copy for all TSO packets
on NICs such as tg3/e1000. These drivers have to modify
Herbert Xu wrote:
> David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Other implementation possibility suggestions welcome :-)
>
>
> I see two possibilities:
>
> 1) Move the af_packet hook into the NIC driver.
> 2) Rethink the lockless tx setup. If all NICs followed the tg3 and
>replaced spin
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:21:27AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:41:01 -0700
> >
> >
> >>kfree_skb(NULL) is legal so the conditional here is unneeded.
> >>
> >>But the increased calls to kfree_s
David S. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Other implementation possibility suggestions welcome :-)
I see two possibilities:
1) Move the af_packet hook into the NIC driver.
2) Rethink the lockless tx setup. If all NICs followed the tg3 and
replaced spin_lock_irqsave with spin_lock then w
David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:41:01 -0700
>
>
>>kfree_skb(NULL) is legal so the conditional here is unneeded.
>>
>>But the increased calls to kfree_skb(NULL) would probably bring the
>>"unlikely()" hordes descending on kfree_skb,
From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:41:01 -0700
> kfree_skb(NULL) is legal so the conditional here is unneeded.
>
> But the increased calls to kfree_skb(NULL) would probably bring the
> "unlikely()" hordes descending on kfree_skb, so maybe:
And unfortunately as
On Mon, 15 May 2006 16:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> > From: Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > > Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone
On Mon, 15 May 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone to avoid
> > the double cloning issue.
>
> I still very much dislike this patch because it is cr
David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>>Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone to avoid
>>the double cloning issue.
>
>
> I still very much dislike this patch because it is creating
> 1 more clon
On Sun, 14 May 2006, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 03:10:34 -0700
>
> > It's a bit sad to be taking a clone of a clone like this.
> > Avoidable?
>
> Besides, clones of clones are illegal, if it's already a clone
> you must make a copy.
From: Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
> Heres a new version which does a copy instead of the clone to avoid
> the double cloning issue.
I still very much dislike this patch because it is creating
1 more clone per packet than is actually necessary a
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 03:10:34 -0700
> It's a bit sad to be taking a clone of a clone like this.
> Avoidable?
Besides, clones of clones are illegal, if it's already a clone
you must make a copy.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe n
Thank you for the comments. Incorporated feedback into current version.
-Thanks,
Ranjit
--- linux-2.6/net/sched/sch_generic.c 2006-05-10 12:34:52.0 -0700
+++ linux/net/sched/sch_generic.c 2006-05-14 08:53:33.0 -0700
@@ -136,8 +136,12 @@
if (!netif
Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This patch fixes the problem where tcpdump shows duplicate packets
> while tracing outbound packets on drivers which support lockless
> transmit. The patch changes the current behaviour to tracing the
> packets only on a successful transmit.
>
There
This patch fixes the problem where tcpdump shows duplicate packets
while tracing outbound packets on drivers which support lockless
transmit. The patch changes the current behaviour to tracing the
packets only on a successful transmit.
Signed-off-by: Ranjit Manomohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux
17 matches
Mail list logo
