[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1270711551.2215.5.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:25:51 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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
Le jeudi 08 avril 2010 à 00:05 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
> 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...
Thanks !
But hackbench is a af_unix benchmark, so loopback stuff is not used that
much :)
--
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