From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] [PATCH] dynamic calculation of event message size for ctnetlink Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:03:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4922A0E4.5010806@trash.net> References: <20081117083924.11368.38741.stgit@Decadence> <20081117084141.11368.26975.stgit@Decadence> <49218EA3.8090801@trash.net> <49223799.70505@netfilter.org> <4922973A.7000001@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:33874 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751356AbYKRLDG (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:03:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4922973A.7000001@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> These calculations look somewhat expensive to perform for every message. >>> Do you have any numbers for this new patch that shows the difference >>> in CPU usage compared to the resizing done by af_netlink.c? >> Fabian Hugelshofer reported some reduction (~5%) on an embedded >> environment but he was using top to measure the difference. I'll collect >> some more trustable data and get back to you. > > Some oprofile results: > > wo/patch > 2189 0.0305 nf_conntrack_netlink.ko nf_conntrack_netlink > ctnetlink_conntrack_event > > w/patch > 2302 0.0440 nf_conntrack_netlink.ko nf_conntrack_netlink > ctnetlink_conntrack_event > > While __alloc_skb and netlink_broadcast report similar values for w/ and > wo/ the patch. So its actually getting worse? :) Any other differences, like less cycles for memcpy in netlink_trim()?