public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@oss.sgi.com" <netdev@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission  policy!)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:22:41 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3A580B31.7998C783@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3A578F27.D2A9DF52@candelatech.com> <20010107042959.A14330@gruyere.muc.suse.de>

Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:33:27PM -0700, Ben Greear wrote:
> > I'm hoping that I can get a few comments on this code.  It was added
> > to (significantly) speed up things like 'ifconfig -a' when running with
> > 4000 or so VLAN devices.  It should also help other instances with lots
> > of (virtual) devices, like FrameRelay, ATM, and possibly virtual IP
> > interfaces.  It probably won't help 'normal' users much, and in it's final
> > form, should probably be a selectable option in the config process.
> >
> > Anyway, let me know what you think!
> 
> Does it make any significant different with the ifconfig from newest nettools? I
> removed a quadratic algorithm from ifconfig's device parsing, and with that I was
> able to display a few thousand alias devices on a unpatched kernel in reasonable time.
> 
> -Andi

At the time I was doing this, I downloaded the latest nettools version.
The hashing made a very noticable difference on 4000 interfaces, but
I haven't run any real solid benchmarkings at other levels.  Can
you tell me some distinguishing mark (version?) on ifconfig that I
can look for?

I'm willing to run such benchmarks, but what would make a good benchmark,
other than ifconfig -a?

And a question for the socket gurus:

Suppose I bind a raw socket to device vlan4001 (ie I have 4k in the list
before that one!!).  Currently, that means a linear search on all devices,
right?  In that extreme example, I would expect the hash to be very
useful.

Binding to IP addresses have the same issue??

Also, though hashing by name is not horribly exact, hashing on the device
index should be nearly perfect, so finding device 666 might take a search
through only 5 or so devices (find the hash-bucket, walk down the list in
that bucket).

-- 
Ben Greear (greearb@candelatech.com)  http://www.candelatech.com
Author of ScryMUD:  scry.wanfear.com 4444        (Released under GPL)
http://scry.wanfear.com               http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-01-07  5:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-01-06 21:33 [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) Ben Greear
2001-01-06 23:17 ` David S. Miller
2001-01-07  4:06   ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07  5:36     ` David S. Miller
2001-01-07 13:42     ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission Alan Cox
2001-01-07 15:33       ` Matti Aarnio
2001-01-07 16:46         ` Alan Cox
2001-01-07 17:32           ` Matti Aarnio
2001-01-07 19:02       ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07 18:06         ` Alan Cox
2001-01-07 18:53           ` Matti Aarnio
2001-01-07 19:30           ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07 18:30             ` Alan Cox
2001-01-07 22:40           ` 5116
2001-01-08  2:19           ` David Ford
2001-01-09 20:25           ` Christopher E. Brown
2001-01-10  2:47             ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07 18:21         ` jamal
2001-01-07 19:00           ` Matti Aarnio
2001-01-07 19:10             ` jamal
2001-01-07 19:24               ` Matti Aarnio
2001-01-08  0:21                 ` jamal
2001-01-07 19:37           ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07 18:53             ` jamal
2001-01-07  3:29 ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-07  5:40   ` David S. Miller
2001-01-07  6:15   ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07 10:22   ` David Ford
2001-01-07 12:13     ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-07 12:01       ` David S. Miller
2001-01-08  5:32         ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-08  6:12           ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-08  6:26             ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-08  6:57               ` David Ford
2001-01-08 13:08                 ` jamal
2001-01-09 13:28                   ` Blu3Viper
2001-01-08  6:13           ` Blu3Viper
2001-01-07 12:19       ` David Ford
2001-01-07 16:56   ` jamal
2001-01-07 17:37     ` Gleb Natapov
2001-01-07 18:02       ` routable interfaces WAS( " jamal
2001-01-07 19:21         ` routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (DoesNOT " Ben Greear
2001-01-07 18:29           ` jamal
2001-01-07 18:51             ` Gleb Natapov
2001-01-07 19:05               ` jamal
2001-01-07 19:19             ` routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup(DoesNOT " Sandy Harris
2001-01-07 20:42               ` Ben Greear
2001-01-08  0:37                 ` jamal
2001-01-08  5:25                   ` routable interfaces WAS( Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup(DoesNOTmeet " Ben Greear
2001-01-08 13:05                     ` jamal
2001-01-07  3:29 ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet " Andi Kleen
2001-01-07  4:00   ` jamal
2001-01-07  4:06     ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-07  5:43     ` David S. Miller
2001-01-07 11:40       ` [little bit OT] ip _IS_ _NOT_ ifconfig and route ! (was Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!)) Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2001-01-07 11:50         ` David S. Miller
2001-01-07 13:47       ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission Alan Cox
2001-01-07 16:12         ` jamal
2001-01-07 16:51           ` Alan Cox
2001-01-07 15:56       ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) jamal
2001-01-07 16:30         ` Gleb Natapov
2001-01-07 16:36           ` jamal
2001-01-07 19:54         ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumissionpolicy!) Ben Greear
2001-01-07  6:24     ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07  5:29       ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-07  6:22   ` Ben Greear [this message]
2001-01-07  5:27     ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) Andi Kleen
2001-01-07  8:11       ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!) (Benchmarks) Ben Greear
2001-01-07  7:15         ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-08  8:12         ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (New Benchmarks) Ben Greear
2001-01-08  7:00           ` David S. Miller
2001-01-08 16:26             ` Ben Greear
2001-01-08 16:50               ` Andi Kleen
2001-01-09 16:27                 ` Ben Greear
2001-01-07 13:50     ` [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission Alan Cox
2001-01-07 16:44       ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2001-01-07 19:09       ` Ben Greear

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=3A580B31.7998C783@candelatech.com \
    --to=greearb@candelatech.com \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox