From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PATCH] dynamic calculation of event message size for ctnetlink Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:16:38 +0100 Message-ID: <49BF94A6.6080508@trash.net> References: <20090317094909.6434.27331.stgit@Decadence> <49BF91A8.2070900@trash.net> <20090317121446.GB3526@mail.eitzenberger.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Patrick McHardy , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:45411 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752634AbZCQMQm (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:16:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090317121446.GB3526@mail.eitzenberger.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Holger Eitzenberger wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 01:03:52PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > >> OK seriously, we need *some* numbers showing an improvement since I >> have basically zero base to decide between your patches, besides the >> fact that its to be expected that Holger's will be slightly faster. > > I think we can give the hard numbers in the next 1-3 days. Do you > have a special test in mind? Pablo, how did you test then? Nothing too complicated. I guess either a raw throughput benchmark, some cycle counting for event delivery or event delivery throughput would all be fine.