From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:41:08 +0000

quoted text
> Yes, this looks reasonable. On the other hand, I think it would be
> nice to get some opinions of slab folks (incl. Evgeniy) on the expected
> efficiency of such a solution. (It seems releasing with put_page() will
> always have some cost with delayed reusing and/or waste of space.)

I think we can't avoid using carved up pages for skb->data in the end.
The whole kernel wants to speak in pages and be able to grab and
release them in one way and one way only (get_page() and put_page()).

What do you think is more likely?  Us teaching the whole entire kernel
how to hold onto SKB linear data buffers, or the networking fixing
itself to operate on pages for it's header metadata? :-)

What we'll end up with is likely a hybrid scheme.  High speed devices
will receive into pages.  And also the skb->data area will be page
backed and held using get_page()/put_page() references.

It is not even worth optimizing for skb->data holding the entire
packet, that's not the case that matters.

These skb->data areas will thus be 128 bytes plus the skb_shinfo
structure blob.  They also will be recycled often, rather than held
onto for long periods of time.

In fact we can optimize that even further in many ways, for example by
dropping the skb->data backed memory once the skb is queued to the
socket receive buffer.  That will make skb->data buffer lifetimes
miniscule even under heavy receive load.

In that kind of situation, doing even the most stupidest page slicing
algorithm, similar to what we do now with sk->sk_sndmsg_page, is
more than adequate and things like NTA (purely to solve this problem)
is overengineering.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html