From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: mingo@elte.hu
Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, dada1@cosmosbay.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl
Subject: Re: poor network loopback performance and scalability
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:16:23 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080421.011623.67335122.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080421081103.GA31328@elte.hu>
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:11:03 +0200
>
> * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>
> > To move things forward, we should look into doing something similar to
> > what Al Viro suggested, which would be to return an SKB pointer from
> > the transmit path and call back into netif_receive_skb() using that.
>
> yep, basically the sk_peer trick that AF_UNIX is already using.
Please read again, that isn't the suggestion being discussed.
What's being discussed is having the top of the transmit call path
getting a socket "buffer" pointer, that it can feed back into the
packet input path directly. Loopback would return buffer pointers
from ->hard_start_xmit() instead of passing them netif_rx(). The top
of the transmit call path, upon getting a non-NULL buffer returned,
would pass it to netif_receive_skb().
We're not talking about sockets, although that is another idea (which
I'm working on a patch for, and I have a mechanism for what you refer
to as "path validation").
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-21 8:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-21 18:51 [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx() Eric Dumazet
2008-02-21 20:14 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-21 23:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-02-22 10:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2008-02-27 2:21 ` David Miller
2008-02-27 7:20 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-02-27 7:23 ` David Miller
2008-02-27 7:34 ` Jarek Poplawski
2008-03-01 10:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-04 4:55 ` David Miller
2008-03-04 5:15 ` Stephen Hemminger
2008-03-04 6:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 10:29 ` David Miller
2008-03-23 18:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-23 19:15 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-29 1:36 ` David Miller
2008-03-29 8:18 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-29 23:54 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 6:38 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 9:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 10:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-01 9:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-04-03 14:06 ` Pavel Machek
2008-04-03 16:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2008-03-31 10:08 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 10:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-31 11:02 ` David Miller
2008-03-31 11:36 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability (was: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()) Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 3:24 ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 3:38 ` poor network loopback performance and scalability David Miller
2008-04-21 8:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 8:16 ` David Miller [this message]
2008-04-21 10:19 ` Herbert Xu
2008-04-21 10:22 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080421.011623.67335122.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).