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

[Eric Dumazet]

Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:57:13PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@xxxxxxxxxx) 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/