Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 20:21:02 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: pppd vs ijppp Message-ID: <199601110321.UAA16434@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199601102345.SAA00248@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Jan 10, 96 06:45:24 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes...actually i have a pretty good idea what im talking about. > There are things that belong in the kernel and things that dont. > Thinks that interarct with > USERS > clearly belong in user space, because you can't save a process > switch anyway and users are clearly an incremental variable. ppp, > on the otherhand, is a network interface, whose traffic is most > usually routed to another network interface. Since > everything > else is in the kernel, its nonsensical to pull data out just to > do a tiny bit of processing (probably none actually) just to push > it back in. Your beating up your system for no reason, and if > you're charging customers then your cheating them as well. Er. I think you are confusing implementation details with implementability. Typically I mmap the buffer area in my applications, which saves me the copy because the mapping is the same in both spaces after I ioctl the buffer address to a driver to lock the pages down and get their absolute address for later use by the kernel. Context switch overhead for a given MTU of serial data before a packet end is *nothing* if implemented as a line discipline. Is this a case of missing the forest for the trees? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199601110321.UAA16434>