From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: Peter Chacko <peterchacko35@gmail.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: [RFD] Pluggable code design (was: can we reuse an skb)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:46:13 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, radhamohan_ch@yahoo.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <962874.62146.qm@web94813.mail.in2.yahoo.com> <20090619.162957.156347025.davem@davemloft.net> <1f808b4a0906202241l1d74364ft52d99ecb6b0274f5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1f808b4a0906202241l1d74364ft52d99ecb6b0274f5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906211446.13665.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1202
Lines: 29

Peter Chacko wrote:
> What i am considering here is the super optimization of memory buffers
> for a multi-layer packet processor, without needing to move packets
> into user space. In that case, i am optimizing my custom network stack
> with a pre-allocated MTU sized and a few  jumbo-sized buffers. And no
> interrupts as i do NAPI at all times, as this is a dedicated
> appliance. I keep all these buffers in the L1 cache and hence i have
> different sets of pools for different cores. I  am currently guiding
> my engineers to implement the code changes now..

Yes, having a customizable/pluggable network stack sounds very useful.

In general, OpenSource projects like Linux don't give much incentive to 
pluggable designs, because the source, being open, represents a weired form 
of pluggability.  Unfortunately, this "hack it up / code it hard" design 
style usually inhibits healthy development.

A rethink is probably in place...


Thanks!

--
Al
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/