From: Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz <nf@hipac.org>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] High Performance Packet Classifiction for tc framework
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:56:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3F390021.5040705@hipac.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030811224050.59bc36fe.davem@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1446 bytes --]
Hi David
You wrote:
> The ipv4 FIB hash tables tackle exactly this problem. The resulting
> worse cast complexity is O(n_bits_in_prefix_mask).
>
> The problem you've described is exactly the same as trying to use
> hashing for routing tables.
Yes, that's true for the 1-dimensional case. You refer to the
following algorithm, don't you?
min_prio := infinity
match_rule := nil
for all list_entries e: { // at most w+1 entries where w is the bit
// width of the keys
rule = lookup(hash(e), packet) // let's assume O(1) here
if (prio(rule) < min_prio) {
min_prio = prio(rule)
match_rule = rule
}
}
return match_rule
This algorithm has running time O(w).
[In fact it's O(number of different prefix lengths) which is O(w)
in the worst case.]
But what about the d-dimensional case? If you extend this
approach to handle rules with d prefix based matches you end
up in a running time of: O(w^d)
(assuming w to be the max. bit width)
This is definitely not desirable.
Regards,
+-----------------------+----------------------+
| Michael Bellion | Thomas Heinz |
| <mbellion@hipac.org> | <creatix@hipac.org> |
+-----------------------+----------------------+
| High Performance Packet Classification |
| nf-hipac: http://www.hipac.org/ |
+----------------------------------------------+
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-12 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-14 8:45 [RFC] High Performance Packet Classifiction for tc framework Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-07-16 5:02 ` jamal
2003-07-17 13:13 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-08-03 18:14 ` jamal
2003-08-04 13:17 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-08-04 15:51 ` jamal
2003-08-05 22:21 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-08-07 19:58 ` jamal
2003-08-07 20:05 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-08 21:51 ` jamal
2003-08-09 0:01 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-11 22:39 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-08-12 2:57 ` jamal
2003-08-12 14:56 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-08-12 15:41 ` jamal
2003-08-12 5:40 ` David S. Miller
2003-08-12 14:29 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-12 15:39 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz
2003-08-15 14:28 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-13 17:28 ` Ralph Doncaster
2003-08-13 19:17 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-13 21:10 ` Ralph Doncaster
2003-08-13 23:21 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-08-12 14:56 ` Michael Bellion and Thomas Heinz [this message]
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=3F390021.5040705@hipac.org \
--to=nf@hipac.org \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=hadi@cyberus.ca \
--cc=linux-net@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
/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.