Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.

From: Eric Dumazet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:03:00 +0100

Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit :
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:57:13PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger ([email-masked]) wrote:
>> Why bother with last_rx at all on loopback.  I have been thinking
>> we should figure out a way to get rid of last_rx all together. It only
>> seems to be used by bonding, and the bonding driver could do the calculation
>> in its receive handling.
> 
> Not related to the regression: bug will be just papered out by this
> changes. Having bonding on loopback is somewhat strange idea, but still
> this kind of changes is an attempt to make a good play in the bad game:
> this loopback-only optimization does not fix the problem.
> 

Just to be clear, this change was not meant to be committed.
It already was rejected by David some years ago (2005, and 2006)

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email-masked]/msg07382.html

If you read my mail, I was *only* saying that tbench results can be sensible to
cache line ping pongs. tbench is a crazy benchmark, and only is a crazy benchmark.

Optimizing linux for tbench sake would be .... crazy ?