From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757622AbaFSIPU (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:15:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20344 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757471AbaFSIPQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:15:16 -0400 Message-ID: <53A29C0D.6080408@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:15:09 +0200 From: Daniel Borkmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Rientjes CC: Jet Chen , LKML , netdev , lkp@01.org, Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [net] b58537a1f56: +89.2% netperf.Throughput_Mbps References: <53A10291.7090301@intel.com> <53A1F8D9.7070704@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/18/2014 10:41 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> One assumption could be that netperf was setting this knob >> internally and ignoring the result of it (error/success), but >> that we might need to look up in netperf source to confirm. > > Confirmed netperf-2.4.5 doesn't do this. Ok, thanks for checking, then I fully agree with you. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8098450782974686433==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Daniel Borkmann To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [net] b58537a1f56: +89.2% netperf.Throughput_Mbps Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:15:09 +0200 Message-ID: <53A29C0D.6080408@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: --===============8098450782974686433== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 06/18/2014 10:41 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > >> One assumption could be that netperf was setting this knob >> internally and ignoring the result of it (error/success), but >> that we might need to look up in netperf source to confirm. > > Confirmed netperf-2.4.5 doesn't do this. Ok, thanks for checking, then I fully agree with you. --===============8098450782974686433==--