From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100408.002011.121977482.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1270705153.8141.58.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1270710019.2215.4.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20100408.000557.180546976.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com, cl@linux-foundation.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, netdev@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, alex.shi@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ling.ma@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: eric.dumazet@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35593 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758507Ab0DHHUI (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Apr 2010 03:20:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100408.000557.180546976.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: David Miller Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:05:57 -0700 (PDT) > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:00:19 +0200 > >> If run individually, the tests results are more what we would expect >> (slow), but if machine runs the two set of process concurrently, each >> group runs much faster... > > BTW, I just discovered (thanks to the function graph tracer, woo hoo!) > that loopback TCP packets get fully checksum validated on receive. > > I'm trying to figure out why skb->ip_summed ends up being > CHECKSUM_NONE in tcp_v4_rcv() even though it gets set to > CHECKSUM_PARTIAL in tcp_sendmsg(). Ok, it looks like it's only ACK packets that have this problem, but still :-) It's weird that we have a special ip_dev_loopback_xmit() for for ip_mc_output() NF_HOOK()s, which forces skb->ip_summed to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY, but the actual normal loopback xmit doesn't do that...