netdev - Re: AIM9 regression

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]

Message-ID: <20080924143419.467e0e76@extreme>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:34:19 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	cl@...ux-foundation.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM9 regression

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:

> From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:10:54 -0500
> 
> > Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > 
> > > These loopback benchmarks are often more sensitive to scheduler than networking
> > > changes.
> > 
> > Just ran a test with real NICs which show the same issues. I guess I need to
> > get familiar with the network stack and start hacking on it. Sigh.
> 
> I feel your pain, I think people are being very unreasonable in their
> analysis of your numbers, and for this I want to personally apologize.
> 
> It's clearly a networking issue in my eyes, and I wish my co-developers
> in networking would treat it as such instead of pushing the blame under
> the carpet and saying "scheduler", "SLUB", and all kinds of other bullshit
> without any facts on this specific case to back up such accusations.

Is this a one time change, or has networking been getting slower over time?
--
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