Patrick McHardy wrote: > 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()? netlink_trim is inlined, so it is included in netlink_broadcast, and there's no improve in memcpy nor netlink_broadcast. I'm going to repeat all the test to check if I'm doing something wrong, until that, let's keep it back. -- "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
