Re: nfnetlink_queue -- why linear lookup ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 03:32:30PM +0200, alexandre.ferrieux@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 8/15/21 3:07 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 02:17:08PM +0200, alexandre.ferrieux@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So, the only way forward would be a separate hashtable on ids.
> > 
> > Using the rhashtable implementation is fine for this, it's mostly
> > boilerplate code that is needed to use it and there are plenty of
> > examples in the kernel tree if you need a reference.
> Thanks, that's indeed pretty simple. I was just worried that people would
> object to adding even the slightest overhead (hash_add/hash_del) to the
> existing code path, that satisfies 99% of uses (LIFO). What do you think ?

It should be possible to maintain both the list and the hashtable,
AFAICS, the batch callback still needs the queue_list.

> > > PS: what is the intended dominant use case for batch verdicts ?
> > 
> > Issuing a batch containing several packets helps to amortize the
> > cost of the syscall.
> Yes, but that could also be achieved by passing an array of ids.

You mean, one single sendmsg() with several netlink messages, that
would also work to achieve a similar batching effect.

> The extra constraint of using a (contiguous) range means that there
> is no outlier.  This seems to imply that ranges are no help when
> flows are multiplexed. Or maybe, the assumption was that bursts tend
> to be homogeneous ?

What is your usecase?

[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux