Re: problems with e1000 and jumboframes

From: Evgeniy Polyakov
Date: Sat Aug 05 2006 - 06:22:53 EST

On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 08:09:54PM +1000, Herbert Xu (herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > If you can create several skbs and link them togeter you defenitely can
> > organize pages into frag_list, just get pages from different skb->data
> > and free those skbs.
> Having a more flexible mechanism for managing skb_shared_info->frags
> would definitely be an improvement. At the moment we can't indicate
> whether the individual frags are writable so we assume every frag to
> be read-only.

Having one page inside frag_list writable does not make a lot of sence,
so we really need either all of them writable, or nothing.
And it is much less error-prone to assume that every page is read-only.

> If we had a flag to indicate writability we could also have a flag to
> indicate that the memory comes from kmalloc rather than alloc_page.

Yes, that would be good, but who will give us a bit in the struct page?
Can we recreate frag_list elements to be a bitmasks and steal couple
of them there, so we would not increase fragment's structure size?

> Cheers,
> --
> Visit Openswan at
> Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Home Page:
> PGP Key:

Evgeniy Polyakov
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at