From: Patrick Schaaf <bof@bof.de>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: bof@bof.de, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, ak@suse.de,
laforge@gnumonks.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ip_conntrack_hash() problem
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 08:33:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020905083340.E19551@oknodo.bof.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020904.232425.10994370.davem@redhat.com>; from davem@redhat.com on Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:24:25PM -0700
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:24:25PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> B) I despise the (1 << ...htable_bits) construct, used in several places.
> It's nothing but obfuscation. Please reinstate ...htable_size, and
> use that, the code will be more readable.
>
> You despise, but the processor doesn't. Less data loads
> means the code goes faster.
Please explain. I don't think that matters here:
Both _bits and _size are unsigned int, same amount of stuff to load.
The one single per-packet-path use is in hash_conntrack(), where
the _bits thing can be used without touching the _size thing.
All other places where the patch now uses _bits, really need _size,
and do the ugly computation by shifting. And all those other places
are called very rarely.
So, I don't see how your (abstractly true) observation is relevant, here.
best regards
Patrick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-05 6:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-04 12:33 ip_conntrack_hash() problem Martin Wilck
2002-09-04 12:56 ` Harald Welte
2002-09-04 13:24 ` Martin Wilck
2002-09-04 13:26 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-05 0:39 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-05 6:21 ` Patrick Schaaf
2002-09-05 6:24 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-05 6:33 ` Patrick Schaaf [this message]
2002-09-05 6:32 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-05 6:32 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-05 6:39 ` Patrick Schaaf
2002-09-05 6:40 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-05 13:37 ` Rik van Riel
2002-09-05 11:14 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-05 6:51 ` Patrick Schaaf
2002-09-05 7:19 ` Martin Wilck
2002-09-05 11:15 ` Rusty Russell
2002-09-05 11:54 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-05 17:55 ` Patrick Schaaf
2002-09-05 18:24 ` Martin Wilck
2002-10-11 3:51 ` Zheng Weibin
2002-09-05 8:19 ` Harald Welte
2002-09-04 13:40 ` Martin Wilck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020905083340.E19551@oknodo.bof.de \
--to=bof@bof.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=laforge@gnumonks.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.