From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: Patches solving the same issue!? Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:33:32 +0200 Message-ID: <486CE33C.7080804@trash.net> References: <> <1215021635-28691-1-git-send-email-jacob@internet24.de> <1215021635-28691-2-git-send-email-jacob@internet24.de> <1215032251.9467.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <486CC931.2010703@trash.net> <1215095403.26474.103.camel@enterprise.ims-firmen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jdb@comx.dk, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Jacob Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:38915 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757949AbYGCOdf (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 10:33:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1215095403.26474.103.camel@enterprise.ims-firmen.de> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thomas Jacob wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 14:42 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Please work this out among yourselves. I think we should just pick >> the faster one since both don't look very intrusive. > > Well, Jesper's version doesn't build any extra data-structures, > so you save time&space there, and the offsets stuff is really > only needed once, so the chain_index rebuilding penalty > doesn't play a role. > > And since about 2/3s of time it takes to load my 50k Chains now > is system time, it's probably irrelevant whether > 0 + O(n * (log(n/40)+40)) is sometimes larger than O(n+n/1024) + > O(log(n)). > > Mine vs. Jesper's: > > iptables-restore (50k chains, 120k rules), average for 10 runs: > > User: 2.558 s - System: 8.672 s - Total : 11.222 s > vs > User: 2.622 s - System: 8.520 s - Total : 11.140 s > > > iptables -vnL SOMECHAIN (2 entries, with the above ruleset in kernel), > average for 20 runs > > User: .094 s - System: .363 s - Total : .455 s > vs > User: .085 s - System: .389 s - Total : .472 s > > Those numbers are all within the standard deviations of each other, > so there is no difference for practical purposes, I think :-) > > I would use Jesper's patch. OK, thanks for the numbers and sorting this out so peacefully :)