From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: AIM9 regression Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080924.125346.178957726.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080923.221831.126801015.davem@davemloft.net> <20080924081603.08a5f808@extreme> <48DA90BE.5090208@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: cl@linux-foundation.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:54521 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753159AbYIXTx6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:53:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48DA90BE.5090208@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Christoph Lameter 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.