From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: RDMA will be reverted Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060629.131938.55726619.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060629.124628.88476747.davem@davemloft.net> <1151611866.11739.57.camel@trinity.ogc.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rdreier@cisco.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:2528 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932408AbWF2UTk (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:19:40 -0400 To: tom@opengridcomputing.com In-Reply-To: <1151611866.11739.57.camel@trinity.ogc.int> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Tom Tucker Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 15:11:06 -0500 > Doesn't this position force vendors to build deeper adapters, not > shallower adapters? Isn't this exactly the opposite of what is intended? Nope. Look at what the networking developers give a lot of attention and effort to, things like TCP Large Receive Offload, and Van Jacobson net channels, both of which are fully stack integrated receive performance enhancements. They do not bypass netfilter, they do not bypass packet scheduling, and yet they provide a hardware assist performance improvement for receive. This has been stated over and over again. If companies keep designing undesirable hardware that unnecessarily takes features away from the user, that really is not our problem.