Max Kellermann wrote: > On 2008/01/21 14:18, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Sure. Current approach gives good results to my benchmarks and I can >> make peace since it's not linear anymore ;). > > It's still linear. add_alarm() is still O(n), or better: it is > O(n/2048) which is mathematically the same as O(n). But you made > everything else O(n*2048) = O(n), which is why I dislike this > optimization - you optimized for one artificial test case, penalizing > the majority of conntrackd users who don't have 25.000 connections. Indeed, it's still linear, what I meant to say is that we keep n smaller since now it depends on the number of alarms in the bucket. The statistics users are not penalized since they never run alarms. This is true for sync-ftfw users though which only use one alarm, probably we can tune the alarm scheduler (ALARM_HASH_SIZE) depending on the conntrackd working mode. -- "Los honestos son inadaptados sociales" -- Les Luthiers - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
