Subject: Re: Who's allowed to set a skb destructor?

From: Jarek Poplawski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:28:50 +0200

On 05-07-2007 12:08, Andi Kleen wrote:
...
> The traditional standpoint was that having your own large skb pools 
> is not recommended because you won't interact well with the 
> rest of the system running low on memory and you tieing up 
> memory.
> 
> Essentially you would recreate all the problems traditional Unix
> systems have with fixed size mbuf pools. Linux always used a more
> dynamic and flexible allocate-only-as-you-need approach even when it
> can have a little more overhead in managing IOMMUs etc.

I wonder if it's very unsound to think about a one way list
of destructors. Of course, not owners could only clean their
private allocations. Woudn't this save some skb clonning,
copying or adding new fields for private infos?

Regards,
Jarek P.