Re: [PATCH] Implementation of the sendgroup() system call

[Avi Kivity]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > My guess it's more the copies than the calls? It sounds like
> > > you want sendfile() for UDP. I think that would be a cleaner solution
> > > than such a specific hack for your application. It would
> > > have the advantage of saving the first copy too and be 
> > > truly zero copy on capable NICs.
> > >  
> > >       
> > An aio udp send could accomplish both multiple packets per call, and 
> >     
>
> AIO sockets are a lot of work. There have been various attempts
> over the years, but they are very difficult. This was mostly
> for TCP -- possibly UDP would be a bit easier -- but still
> many complications. It would also need a lot of changes and
> you would need to convince the network maintainers that they
> are a good idea.
>   

I would love them for kvm.  As far as I understand, the only 
complication is proper socket destructors so we can put_page() the memory.

Right now sendfile() is only usable for read-only files.  It's not 
usable for files that change, or non-file memory.

>   
> > > Or perhaps simple send to a local multicast group and let
> > > some netfilter module turn that into regular UDP.
> > >  
> > >       
> > Sounds hacky and rooty.
> >     
>
> rooty? Everyone can send to all directions anyways.
>
> It wouldn't be perfect, but quite usable as a short term solution
> for a production server.
>   

I meant, you need root to insert that netfiler module.  It's workable as 
a one off but it's not something reusable.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

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