search for: 128bytes

...t;>>> + buf->addr = pkt->buf; >>>>> + pkt->buf = NULL; >>>>> + } else { >>>> Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue >>>> for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for >>>> big packets. >>>> >>>> See receive_big() >>> I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. >>> IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the >>> first 128 bytes, then adds the buffer used to receive...

...t;>>> + buf->addr = pkt->buf; >>>>> + pkt->buf = NULL; >>>>> + } else { >>>> Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue >>>> for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for >>>> big packets. >>>> >>>> See receive_big() >>> I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. >>> IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the >>> first 128 bytes, then adds the buffer used to receive...

...en == pkt->buf_len) { >>> + buf->addr = pkt->buf; >>> + pkt->buf = NULL; >>> + } else { >> >> Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue >> for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for >> big packets. >> >> See receive_big() > I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. > IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the > first 128 bytes, then adds the buffer used to receive the packet as a frag to > the skb. Yes and...

...en == pkt->buf_len) { >>> + buf->addr = pkt->buf; >>> + pkt->buf = NULL; >>> + } else { >> >> Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue >> for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for >> big packets. >> >> See receive_big() > I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. > IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the > first 128 bytes, then adds the buffer used to receive the packet as a frag to > the skb. Yes and...

...+ */ > + if (zero_copy && pkt->len == pkt->buf_len) { > + buf->addr = pkt->buf; > + pkt->buf = NULL; > + } else { Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for big packets. See receive_big(). Thanks > + buf->addr = kmalloc(pkt->len, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!buf->addr) { > + kfree(buf); > + return NULL; > + } > + > + memcpy(buf->addr, pkt->buf, pkt->len); > + } > + > + buf->len = pkt->len;...

...+ */ > + if (zero_copy && pkt->len == pkt->buf_len) { > + buf->addr = pkt->buf; > + pkt->buf = NULL; > + } else { Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for big packets. See receive_big(). Thanks > + buf->addr = kmalloc(pkt->len, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!buf->addr) { > + kfree(buf); > + return NULL; > + } > + > + memcpy(buf->addr, pkt->buf, pkt->len); > + } > + > + buf->len = pkt->len;...

...kt->buf; > > > > > > + pkt->buf = NULL; > > > > > > + } else { > > > > > Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue > > > > > for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for > > > > > big packets. > > > > > > > > > > See receive_big() > > > > I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. > > > > IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the > > > > first 1...

...amp; pkt->len == pkt->buf_len) { > > + buf->addr = pkt->buf; > > + pkt->buf = NULL; > > + } else { > > > Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue > for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for > big packets. > > See receive_big() I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the first 128 bytes, then adds the buffer used to receive the packet as a frag to the skb. Do you suggest to implement something...

...> + buf->addr = pkt->buf; > > > > + pkt->buf = NULL; > > > > + } else { > > > > > > Is the copy still needed if we're just few bytes less? We meet similar issue > > > for virito-net, and virtio-net solve this by always copy first 128bytes for > > > big packets. > > > > > > See receive_big() > > I'm seeing, It is more sophisticated. > > IIUC, virtio-net allocates a sk_buff with 128 bytes of buffer, then copies the > > first 128 bytes, then adds the buffer used to receive the packet as...

Hi folks, Has anyone encountered the following PCI passthrough error? error: internal error Process exited while reading console \ log output: char device redirected to /dev/pts/1 assigned_dev_pci_read: pread failed, ret = 0 errno = 2 It's produced after I've detached the PCI device from the base OS and have tried to start up the guest domain. To get to this point, I

Hello, I''m facing a strange issue with network card PCI passthrough on my openwrt test domU. - With network PCI passthrough, DNS lookup failed for some domains (exemple, google.com) but not for other (free.fr my ISP, or my domain jbfavre.org). I can ping an IP address without any problem. - Starting domU as a "normal" (ie without PCI passthrough), no problem. As far as I can

While I was testing this new series (v2) I discovered an huge use of memory and a memory leak in the virtio-vsock driver in the guest when I sent 1-byte packets to the guest. These issues are present since the introduction of the virtio-vsock driver. I added the patches 1 and 2 to fix them in this series in order to better track the performance trends. v1:

While I was testing this new series (v2) I discovered an huge use of memory and a memory leak in the virtio-vsock driver in the guest when I sent 1-byte packets to the guest. These issues are present since the introduction of the virtio-vsock driver. I added the patches 1 and 2 to fix them in this series in order to better track the performance trends. v1: