netdev - Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:05:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
	penberg@...helsinki.fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
	alex.shi@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ling.ma@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:00:19 +0200

> If run individually, the tests results are more what we would expect
> (slow), but if machine runs the two set of process concurrently, each
> group runs much faster...

BTW, I just discovered (thanks to the function graph tracer, woo hoo!)
that loopback TCP packets get fully checksum validated on receive.

I'm trying to figure out why skb->ip_summed ends up being
CHECKSUM_NONE in tcp_v4_rcv() even though it gets set to
CHECKSUM_PARTIAL in tcp_sendmsg().

I wonder how much this accounts for some of the hackbench
oddities... and other regressions in loopback tests we've seen.
:-)

Just FYI...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html