Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?

[Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:28:47PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi, Jarek.
> 
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 02:28:50PM +0200, Jarek Poplawski (jarkao2@o2.pl) wrote:
> > I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
> > of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
> > private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning,
> > copying or adding new fields for private infos?
> 
> There should not be any additional allocations, since they are very
> slow, that part of mbuf is really horrible for performance - openbsd
> hackers removed additional allocation of mbuf tag in PF code during the
> last hackathon, which doubled its performance, that is why skb has only 
> one control structure and data area, which incorporates additional 
> control information, thus there is no need for multiple destructors.

Of course, my knowledge of this is far not enough, and maybe
I got this reversed, but from Andi's words I've understood
that linux prefers another (mixed) approach, so I've thought
such list should be a consequence...

Thanks,
Jarek P.