From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: gen_estimator: Fix gen_kill_estimator() lookups Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:52:59 +0000 Message-ID: <20081125075259.GA4265@ff.dom.local> References: <20081124120404.GA16413@ff.dom.local> <1227532725.22481.14.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> <20081124133724.GC16755@ff.dom.local> <1227538858.22481.29.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Badalian Vyacheslav , Denys Fedoryshchenko , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:65211 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751534AbYKYHxG (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:53:06 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 39so985894ugf.37 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:53:03 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1227538858.22481.29.camel@dogo.mojatatu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:00:58AM -0500, jamal wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 13:37 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > I first thought about a hash, but alas Patrick's solution is sched > > only... Anyway, I din't see too much overhead in memory use, and no > > diffrence in addition times (without batching). > > Showing numbers in a commit for perf improvement IMO is always a good > thing. Sure, but alas I'm not a perf guy... > BTW, I dont think it would make a noticeable difference (batching > notwithstanding) in addition or even deletion unless you have quiet a > few with the same estimate sampling time loaded. My very unprofessional tests gave approximately 319s vs. 0.34s with: "time tc qdisc del dev lo root" for 65535 htb classes, and as you predicted (and I was surprised) no noticeable difference in addition times with or without batching. Cheers, Jarek P.