Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20081031.025159.51432990.davem@davemloft.net>
To: ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi
Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, zbr@ioremap.net, rjw@sisk.pl, mingo@elte.hu,
       s0mbre@tservice.net.ru, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810311119510.7072@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810302047030.22084@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
	<20081031.005219.141937694.davem@davemloft.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0810311119510.7072@wrl-59.cs.helsinki.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 784
Lines: 18

From: "Ilpo J?rvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:16 +0200 (EET)

> Let me remind that it is just a single process, so no ping-pong & other 
> lock related cache effects should play any significant role here, no? (I'm 
> no expert though :-)).

Not locks or ping-pongs perhaps, I guess.  So it just sends and
receives over a socket, implementing both ends of the communication
in the same process?

If hash chain conflicts do happen for those 2 sockets, just traversing
the chain 2 entries deep could show up.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/