netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: gen_estimator: Fix 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081125075259.GA4265@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 07:52:59 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	hadi@...erus.ca
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>,
	Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@...p.net.lb>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: gen_estimator: Fix gen_kill_estimator() lookups

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:00:58AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 13:37 +0000, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> 
> > I first thought about a hash, but alas Patrick's solution is sched
> > only... Anyway, I din't see too much overhead in memory use, and no
> > diffrence in addition times (without batching).
> 
> Showing numbers in a commit for perf improvement IMO is always a good
> thing.

Sure, but alas I'm not a perf guy...

> BTW, I dont think it would make a noticeable difference (batching
> notwithstanding) in addition or even deletion unless you have quiet a
> few with the same estimate sampling time loaded.

My very unprofessional tests gave approximately 319s vs. 0.34s with:
"time tc qdisc del dev lo root" for 65535 htb classes, and as you
predicted (and I was surprised) no noticeable difference in addition
times with or without batching.
 
Cheers,
Jarek P.
--
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