From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next. Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:56:40 +0300 Message-ID: <20090131095640.GA29099@ioremap.net> References: <20090130095737.103edbff@extreme> <498349F7.4050300@cosmosbay.com> <20090130215008.GB12210@ioremap.net> <49837F7E.90306@cosmosbay.com> <20090130225113.GA13977@ioremap.net> <20090130185224.214b3a59@extreme> <20090131083724.GB26897@ioremap.net> <49841738.7050605@cosmosbay.com> <20090131093123.GA28151@ioremap.net> <49841E8C.60401@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Herbert Xu , berrange@redhat.com, et-mgmt-tools@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from kandzendo.ru ([195.178.208.66]:40721 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750842AbZAaJ4m (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:56:42 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49841E8C.60401@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:49:00AM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@cosmosbay.com) wrote: > It appears you are always right, I have nothing to say then. > > Stupid I am. > > I vote for plain revert of your initial patch, since you are anaware > of performance problems it introduces. Then, probably nobody cares > of my complaints, so dont worry. Eric, do not get it soo personally :) After all it is only a matter of how we enjoy the process and have fun with the development. Really, I appreciate your work and help, and likely this misunderstanding happened because of a bad mix of the original bug and this performance implication. Original bug has really nothing with what we discuss here. And while the performance problem with bound sockets creation may be visible, I did not observe it, while the idea implemented with this approach shows up clearly in the graph I posted. So I vote by both hands to further improve it by moving things around so that there would be no unneded cache flushes during update of this field. -- Evgeniy Polyakov