netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2][NET] gen_estimator: faster gen_kill

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:42:07 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	slavon@...telecom.ru, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2][NET] gen_estimator: faster gen_kill_estimator

On Tue, 2008-22-01 at 08:21 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On 22-01-2008 01:29, David Miller wrote:
> ...
> > Fix this right, make a structure like:
> > 
> > struct kernel_gnet_stats_rate_est {
> > 	struct gnet_stats_rate_est	est;
> > 	void				*gen_estimator;
> > }
> > 
> > And update all the code as needed.
> 
> Thanks!
>  I'll try this...

Jarek,

That looks different from the suggestion from Dave.

May i throw in another bone? Theoretically i can see why it would be a
really bad idea to walk 50K estimators every time you delete one - which
is horrible if you are trying to destroy the say 50K of them and gets
worse as the number of schedulers with 50K classes goes up.

But i am wondering why a simpler list couldnt be walked, meaning:

In gen_kill_estimator(), instead of:

for (idx=0; idx <= EST_MAX_INTERVAL; idx++) {

Would deriving a better initial index be a big improvement?
for (e = elist[est->interval].list; e; e = e->next) {

cheers,
jamal

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html