From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2710039FE0 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:39:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.25 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706740792; cv=none; b=dNPM7C2SCZX+FUoYZBevSmJtR3qRT2rwFR0ebX0LGNxHWENPKf7OuPMEI2PJyFt8bnJa4CX1KTNT8Uay6z6V6AnOotBdL/T4BK1RRWBFy/SkI4tluQ/iZzJpRNa4j8glaN+jlHiWZChu7obtXCUw6y9W5ZA67Hx2wOO9TtihQNk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706740792; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WiI6QKo5oM+FBEVCt/mKZfz/JzxHx90xWXuytt0TEyU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=UpPhzpi3r5sYPr+PBAQCKkDgPwB/qgatV38kSu+mvXbCqzbLydH8c7pM5jS8jLpIhetUlKBevo7qdW5mrsL/wA5H6nKFD4xwSMGVQ9qdGUjpzXA164yEUCweKoIOReuzwfRnXy74E9QWB6ohWAi+PtJ9GVT4LjM1H7Zq4oVsGkU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=plushkava.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=plushkava.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=plushkava.net header.i=@plushkava.net header.b=2sSWMtCQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=v0XFZlOM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.25 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=plushkava.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=plushkava.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=plushkava.net header.i=@plushkava.net header.b="2sSWMtCQ"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="v0XFZlOM" Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F733200B4F; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:39:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:39:50 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=plushkava.net; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1706740789; x=1706827189; bh=hFczB1RNmtjI1pGC2ptZwYWWq/FrM68Z Ai9JxSMm6ok=; b=2sSWMtCQtNcmiO1JpRIGQ028mJNNPAVNaFqgCsNVuL0MzMtE VQy1MlbZDPAOSmyAH0LqgJdNd2FGIeBt99CfMXfqSkhOtZws8dt5zadfIKA8NBYp j09PwjOqGLkzV3XK5CSpeaWWsIka3Y8q7ksjHgcTHwEBG0Byz1VpWlCwNaoBZGQr 4P8/tlfUiWcBKxs2NJueLHJP9Ajhdl+LmUIEWGOFzw/hCUlt7ujgXUiNSEBA3qW4 BC/z3Jsm7V3bNh7RGtw8nAyamPyd9VcDJPShGbvdy9c5KlVy/L1lLQqS1irF4hjy bt+5sii1apH3dSLS8/55sgN8E+DNsx/chvVLWw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1706740789; x= 1706827189; bh=hFczB1RNmtjI1pGC2ptZwYWWq/FrM68ZAi9JxSMm6ok=; b=v 0XFZlOMQ1z9u1WVeaoKou0saKjdKFIP8qQX6YFVaitDvRawKrGcyTtmqZ/qblU4Y 2Qzqh3sFWj5OY7ETAHZbdRJS5QEZUUGW8OEDzm7bV9IS3AKzo+RP8IusrwHZroS9 6fgWA2eQ6+XtBEgm0Ga/mlCHLm0Ti/6yggJQ3I20EiFwu/qR+UaTCe9t5t5ghmZi IyKbJkwvq7INFNg0IsGEbSWE1yhNb0ydS1zHOg9b/mng9R9ImQNBmb1hh5Rzj2/r pLOceb9+tVNjOlzv26PbqmuaszL0+5+Rs0VpKdhvMgAiFaSPQvMZ5mxjycZYT40d MqZh0OwzIHqS1AUFOtXrg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvkedrfedutdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurf hrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkjghfofggtgfgsehtjeertd fjtddvnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghrihhnucfoihhllhgrrhcuoehkfhhmsehplhhushhhkhgr vhgrrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeihfettefhgeeftefgheeugeeffeehke dukeefffejgeeutdeggeejtdeihefhveenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehkfhhmsehplhhushhhkhgrvhgrrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i2431475f:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:39:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 22:39:47 +0000 From: Kerin Millar To: Anton Cc: netfilter@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Is there an efficient way to delete multiple elements from a set? Message-Id: <20240131223947.525533518741b6cae01e2d6d@plushkava.net> In-Reply-To: References: <3cfd95bb-93ca-4f40-9e1e-bb2526789161@app.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 00:13:37 +0200 Anton wrote: > While this is better in theory, in practice no performance improvement > is observed. This sort of detail is worth paying attention to in a > loop. In a single operation, the 0.01s saved is insignificant. It's not true that it is only worth paying attention to in a loop but I won't argue about it here. Suffice to say that it depends, in part, upon the ability of the program reading from the pipe to perform useful work while reading. There are plenty of programs that can. It seems that nft is not such a program, which I suppose makes sense. Anyway, if the performance of nft seems unusually bad for deletions, it could be bug material. -- Kerin Millar