From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [198.252.153.129]) (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 89C1316EB61 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:14:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.252.153.129 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720725300; cv=none; b=pdB6SF7Qn+XV+LU2ly65d9/AW4QS+L8wtxZnpoCwx+/45S0u32t8d7nGcOHOapFOkpWjzopBi69bxIkM/hWpfUlLs7jsWj+3UPl1F8xLYBO1HPMR8DWznbErPRUSbb3GYBVGs8JDS+ltHP2iaBFDe6xyjQN032nygCMzIlGCOto= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720725300; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vgaqrkTnqz8E+a6EuIf0Q9z4cCabkYR9fsdsCrZ/Mwo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BC//zH1I18xbkabU8fuyHi5xl5DRJfrhjcYgwhhM8iju0oEn3e+B6kA4iHEzJ2IYK/2tV/wW1ObSd2TabZVUQn8QK0JlITt/ibsT9vjuaW7b3Qi129A0yeAEHD7ICmFxTrGJSTDGBEjbFglOno6JOtiJMwSOyh+8QvXvkUrhlG0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=riseup.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=riseup.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=riseup.net header.i=@riseup.net header.b=PJXpRulc; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.252.153.129 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=riseup.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=riseup.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=riseup.net header.i=@riseup.net header.b="PJXpRulc" Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4WKkv00g7RzDqNV for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:14:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1720725292; bh=vgaqrkTnqz8E+a6EuIf0Q9z4cCabkYR9fsdsCrZ/Mwo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Reply-To:From; b=PJXpRulcIBoAvPiWbvFDkFskrgyxb2soPYl12fLcqyHYAFrPQBRcaqmu29D98e4fc tNBNsmEgvEj6sNlrRuaLPcE9Qkp4OBFgUqKvILJYW2lq3cCjOQMpKMf96SN1v05d1q KHzkx8Oc3qS0v//v9i4/N2hFGsudAh5ZF+vhqy+c= X-Riseup-User-ID: B56BAA46DAD279B840BAFD947AE0D7197941825016B464B7469EB61937DFEEE9 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WKktz0nFNzFvM4 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:14:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 19:14:43 -0000 From: "William N." To: netfilter@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: nftables rule optimization - evaluating efficiency Message-ID: <20240711191443.26d294df@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1c12afa3-40fd-48df-9076-92277570ef3b@app.fastmail.com> References: <20240702190318.618a3933@localhost> <20240710183451.0f193976@localhost> <1c12afa3-40fd-48df-9076-92277570ef3b@app.fastmail.com> Reply-To: netfilter@vger.kernel.org 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 Wed, 10 Jul 2024 22:27:02 +0100 Kerin Millar wrote: > Indeed. It cannot be presumed that all instructions are equal in expense. I suppose it may actually be even more complicated if different CPU architectures (all capable of running nft) are considered in a comparison. So, for simplicity, I was hoping to be able to evaluate things at least on a single architecture. > It is a pity Well, I guess I have touched a subject not interesting for many (hence not documented).