From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:07:28 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> While running TCP tests involving netem storing millions of packets,
> I had the idea to speed up tfifo_reset() and did experiments.
>
> I tried the rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() method that is
> used in
On 9/25/17 2:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:14:23 -0600
>
>> I made a simple program this morning and ran it under perf.
>
> If possible please submit this for selftests.
>
It is more of a microbenchmark of options to flush an rbtree than a
self-test
From: David Ahern
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:14:23 -0600
> I made a simple program this morning and ran it under perf.
If possible please submit this for selftests.
Thank you.
On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 10:14 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> Thanks for the test.
>
> I made a simple program this morning and ran it under perf. With the
> above suggestion the rb_erase has a high cost because it always deletes
> the root node. Your method 1 has a high cost on rb_first which is
> exp
On 9/24/17 11:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 20:05 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 9/24/17 7:57 PM, David Ahern wrote:
>
>>> Hi Eric:
>>>
>>> I'm guessing the cost is in the rb_first and rb_next computations. Did
>>> you consider something like this:
>>>
>>> struct rb_r
On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 20:05 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/24/17 7:57 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> > Hi Eric:
> >
> > I'm guessing the cost is in the rb_first and rb_next computations. Did
> > you consider something like this:
> >
> > struct rb_root *root
> > struct rb_node **p = &
On 9/24/17 7:57 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/23/17 12:07 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet
>>
>> While running TCP tests involving netem storing millions of packets,
>> I had the idea to speed up tfifo_reset() and did experiments.
>>
>> I tried the rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe
On 9/23/17 12:07 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> While running TCP tests involving netem storing millions of packets,
> I had the idea to speed up tfifo_reset() and did experiments.
>
> I tried the rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() method that is
> used in skb_rbtree_purge(
From: Eric Dumazet
While running TCP tests involving netem storing millions of packets,
I had the idea to speed up tfifo_reset() and did experiments.
I tried the rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe() method that is
used in skb_rbtree_purge() but discovered it was slower than the
current tfifo_r
