From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] openvswitch: Use zerocopy if applicable when performing the upcall Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:58:20 -0700 Message-ID: <1369421900.3301.431.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <064a09fffe48540b66a3ee503860ed9e8a1eb5f1.1369406826.git.tgraf@suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Graf , netdev , "dev@openvswitch.org" To: Jesse Gross Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:38219 "EHLO mail-pb0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754805Ab3EXS6V (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 May 2013 14:58:21 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id md12so4553391pbc.35 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 11:58:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 10:24 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: > Does this have any impact on small packets? Those are usually the > common case (i.e. TCP SYN) and I think this is slightly less optimal > for those. No difference at all, small packets are copied anyway in skb->head