Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.

[David Miller]

From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:16:33 -0700

> 	I suspect it could also be tucked away in skb_bond_should_drop,
> which is called both by the standard input path and the VLAN accelerated
> path to see if the packet should be tossed (e.g., it arrived on an
> inactive bonding slave).
> 
> 	Since last_rx is part of struct net_device, I don't think any
> additional bonding internals knowledge would be needed.  It could be
> arranged to only update last_rx for devices that are actually bonding
> slaves.
> 
> 	Just off the top of my head (haven't tested this), something
> like this:
 ...
> 
> 	That doesn't move the storage out of struct net_device, but it
> does stop the updates for devices that aren't bonding slaves.  It could
> probably be refined further to only update when the ARP monitor is
> running (the gizmo that uses last_rx).

I like this very much.

Jay can you give this a quick test by just trying this patch
and removing the ->last_rx setting in the driver you use for
your test?

Once you do that, I'll apply this to net-next-2.6 and do the
leg work to zap all of the ->last_rx updates from the entire tree.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/