[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6a2187b0904110905kc2cca83ted751b42693b1565@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:05:34 +0800
From: Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, dada1@...mosbay.com,
kaber@...sh.net, r000n@...0n.net,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:07 PM, Stephen Hemminger
<shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
>> iptables works in whole tables. Userspace submits a table, checkentry is
>> called for all rules in the new table, things are swapped, then destroy
>> is called for all rules in the old table. By that logic (which existed
>> since dawn I think), only the swap operation needs to be locked.
> Part of the overhead is the API choice to take counter values from user
> space during the replace. If the rule replacement just always started with
> zero counters it could be done with less overhead.
It's always good practice to start from zero with these ...
# iptables -F
# iptables -t nat -F
# iptables -X
And most of the time, rules should be put into a file so that it can
rerun easily after reboot. So if it can be speed up for just this
case, it'll help many out there.
Thanks,
Jeff.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists