From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: AIM9 regression Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:34:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20080924143419.467e0e76@extreme> References: <20080923.221831.126801015.davem@davemloft.net> <20080924081603.08a5f808@extreme> <48DA90BE.5090208@linux-foundation.org> <20080924.125346.178957726.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:45858 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751748AbYIXVeW (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:34:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080924.125346.178957726.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:53:46 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > 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. Is this a one time change, or has networking been getting slower over time?