From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Chen Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1: Volanomark slowdown Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:32:08 -0800 Message-ID: <1163025128.10806.217.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1162924354.10806.172.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1163001318.3138.346.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20061108162955.GA4364@suse.de> <1163011132.10806.189.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061108221028.GA16889@suse.de> <1163023652.10806.203.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061108150007.49eaea68@freekitty> Reply-To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Olaf Kirch , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@sunset.davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:63347 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161709AbWKHXVh (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:21:37 -0500 To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20061108150007.49eaea68@freekitty> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 15:00 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > Optimizing for loopback is perversion; perversion can be fun but it gets > to be a obsession then it's sick. > It is not my intention to optimize for this case, but rather to detect change in kernel behavior. That's why in my original mail I ask if increase in ACKs could cause problem for any real application. Tim