[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <490B7284.2010003@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:03:00 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
CC: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi,
rjw@...k.pl, mingo@...e.hu, s0mbre@...rvice.net.ru,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.
Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:57:13PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@...tta.com) wrote:
>> Why bother with last_rx at all on loopback. I have been thinking
>> we should figure out a way to get rid of last_rx all together. It only
>> seems to be used by bonding, and the bonding driver could do the calculation
>> in its receive handling.
>
> Not related to the regression: bug will be just papered out by this
> changes. Having bonding on loopback is somewhat strange idea, but still
> this kind of changes is an attempt to make a good play in the bad game:
> this loopback-only optimization does not fix the problem.
>
Just to be clear, this change was not meant to be committed.
It already was rejected by David some years ago (2005, and 2006)
http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg07382.html
If you read my mail, I was *only* saying that tbench results can be sensible to
cache line ping pongs. tbench is a crazy benchmark, and only is a crazy benchmark.
Optimizing linux for tbench sake would be .... crazy ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists