It is rude. You can say "I don't consider this benchmarking; benchmarking would be XXX" etc. Just to say "you failed" says more about you than this article (which does need work).
What kind of work would it need sorry? Anyway I can understand this may not seem to be real benchmarking, while writing it eventually became almost an excuse, the very original purpose was to kinda verify my Prof's thesis, whether was really right or not. My intention was not even about to utterly speak about benchmarking nor shared memory (which I both tried to cover though).
First of all, your article was fine: you had a question, you thought about it a little and got some data, and wrote it up. More people should do this.
As an article it's not particularly clear in method or presentation. It's not especially clear in what it's measuring, process, isolation of variables. But it's not attempting to be a journal article. So that's not what I meant about "needs work" (though it is hard to pull the message out of the wording).
But I don't think it supports your thesis. Again, thats part of what the web is about (not every posting should be a well polished pearl) so I"m glad you posted this. If you cared though, I'd improve your process. This post might not be worth rewriting though -- that's up to you.
Yes, I got what you meant, and I know that some parts, especially those which cover measuring, should perhaps be investigated deeper. I'll outline the objectives better next time.
Indeed I'm not merely speaking about shared memory, you can find anything anywhere about it. If you had really taken the time to read it, you would have just figured it out.