From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090410.230016.176733137.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090411041533.GB6822@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, shemminger@vyatta.com, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, dada1@cosmosbay.com, kaber@trash.net, r000n@r000n.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: jengelh@medozas.de Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:33643 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751959AbZDKGAZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:00:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Jan Engelhardt Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:14:50 +0200 (CEST) > The fact that `iptables -A` is called a hundred times means you are > doing 100 table replacements -- instead of one. And calling > synchronize_net at least a 100 times. > > "Wanna use iptables-restore?" I want to derail this line of thinking as fast as possible. This is not an acceptable response to this problem. We made something fundamentally slower by several orders of magnitude. Therefore, saying "Don't insert your firewall rules like that." is not a valid response for this regression. We really have to fix it or revert.