From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] tun: fix aio Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:48:37 +0930 Message-ID: <200904271048.38401.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20090420112527.GA6692@dhcp-1-124.tlv.redhat.com> <20090420120930.GA4941@gondor.apana.org.au> <20090420122137.GA6768@dhcp-1-124.tlv.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:51811 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753476AbZD0BSn (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:18:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090420122137.GA6768@dhcp-1-124.tlv.redhat.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:51:38 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:09:30PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > Note: I started out just allocating and copying the iovec rather than adding > > > yet another skb-iterating routine, but this turned out to add small but > > > measurable overhead on data path: tx time per packet jumped from 6500 to 6700 ns > > > (let me know if you want to see that version of the patch). > > > > Can you please post the copying version as well so we can compare? > > Sure. Here it is: much smaller, but slightly slower. Which could probably be fixed by using an on-stack version for a iovec of less than a certain size... Cheers, Rusty.