From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tom.barbette@ulg.ac.be>
Received: from serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.111])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ECFD10C09
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:01:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (serv470.segi.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.199])
 by serv108.segi.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2160C200EFB5;
 Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:01:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EFF3129E5F5;
 Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:01:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
 with ESMTP id 0gmEbHGnxXrh; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:01:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be [139.165.32.199])
 by mbx12-zne.ulg.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC68129E5F4;
 Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:01:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 15:01:31 +0100 (CET)
From: tom.barbette@ulg.ac.be
To: Anupam Kapoor <anupam.kapoor@gmail.com>
Cc: Avi Cohen <avi.cohen@huawei.com>, users@dpdk.org
Message-ID: <1412102721.21124766.1482328891756.JavaMail.zimbra@ulg.ac.be>
In-Reply-To: <CAEXHiZFdaZpTJJyZ3djXU3r-wMiWdS=WvhfW5qZ-DoUPPf-mJQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B84047ECBD981D4B93EAE5A6245AA361A01549@lhreml501-mbb>
 <CAEXHiZFdaZpTJJyZ3djXU3r-wMiWdS=WvhfW5qZ-DoUPPf-mJQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [139.165.223.24]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.9_GA_6191 (ZimbraWebClient - GC55 (Linux)/8.0.9_GA_6191)
Thread-Topic: KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion
Thread-Index: GDoX7QpqSdXSVFRGdt6N+msgIYke+g==
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 14:01:32 -0000

The memory space could be mapped when converting an mbuf to skbuff (while a=
s you say it would be much harder the other way), but I don't see it done i=
n the KNI code.

It memcpy the whole packet.

Out of curiosity, are there plan on using mapped skbuff?

Tom Barbette=20
PhD Student @ Universit=C3=A9 de Li=C3=A8ge=20

Office 1/13=20
B=C3=A2timent B37=20
Quartier Polytech=20
All=C3=A9e de la d=C3=A9couverte, 12=20
4000 Li=C3=A8ge=20

04/366 91 75=20
0479/60 94 63=20


----- Mail original -----
De: "Anupam Kapoor" <anupam.kapoor@gmail.com>
=C3=80: "Avi Cohen" <avi.cohen@huawei.com>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Envoy=C3=A9: Mercredi 21 D=C3=A9cembre 2016 09:28:46
Objet: Re: [dpdk-users] KNI - mbuf-sk_buff converstion

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Avi Cohen <avi.cohen@huawei.com> wrote:

> are zero_copy with respect  to the packet data (headers+payload) - is thi=
s
> correc


=E2=80=8Bumm mbuf's, and skb's are in different address spaces...

--
kind regards
anupam=E2=80=8B


In the beginning was the lambda, and the lambda was with Emacs, and Emacs
was the lambda.