Den 11 jul 2014 23:13 skrev "Bálint Réczey" <bal...@balintreczey.hu>: > > Hi All, > > Please provide the input data for letting others reproduce the results > or perform the performance tests on pcap files already available to > the public
Ok I'll see if we can use something from the wiki instead. > > I'm not a fan of implementing custom memory management methods because > partly because I highly doubt we can beat jemalloc easily on > performance and custom allocation methods can also have nasty bugs > like the one observed in OpenSSL: > http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/analysis-of-openssl-freelist-reuse > We have gone through a set of memory allocation schemes already to try to improve performance (g_slice, emen and now wmem) are you saying that you are opposed to that? As wmem seems to be the faster scheme for packet scope memory allocation /free, why not use it in all possible places where the scope is "packet"? > Please don't sacrifice protection for 2% speedup. Please keep wmem > usage for cases where it is used for garbage collecting (free() after > end of frame/capture file) not when the allocation and deallocation > are already done properly. ? A slow scheme might be working well but that in it self does not warrant to not replace it with a faster one. With this reasoning we shouldn't have introduced ep memory in the first place. What percentage if improvement do you think makes a change worthwhile? The set of improvements Jacub and I have done lately has given a reduction of 40-50 percent compared to 1.10 measuring with the sample file. The problem is that each improvement only yeald a percent or 2. Agreed that we shouldn't complicate the code for a small speed gain. In your blog you say that people would accept double the execution time with increased security - I'm not so sure. If say the reformatting of a video takes one hour instead of 30 minutes. Just my 2 cents Anders > > Thanks, > Balint > > 2014-07-11 8:58 GMT+02:00 Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl>: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:12:48PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote: > >> If we're in topic of optimizing 'slower' [de]allocations in common functions: > >> > >> - tvb allocation/deallocation (2.5%, or 3.4% when no filtering) > >> > >> 243,931,671 * ???:tvb_new [/tmp/wireshark/epan/.libs/libwireshark.so.0.0.0] > >> 202,052,290 > ???:g_slice_alloc (2463493x) [/usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.3600.4] > >> > >> 291,765,126 * ???:tvb_free_chain [/tmp/wireshark/epan/.libs/libwireshark.so.0.0.0] > >> 256,390,635 > ???:g_slice_free1 (2435843x) [/usr/lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.3600.4] > > > >> This, or next week I'll try to do tvb. > > > > ... or maybe this week: > > > > ver0 | 18,055,719,820 (-----------) | Base version 96f0585268f1cc4e820767c4038c10ed4915c12a > > ver1 | 18,185,185,838 (0.6% slower) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to wmem with file scope > > ver2 | 17,809,433,204 (1.4% faster) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to wmem with file/packet scope > > ver3 | 17,812,128,887 (1.3% faster) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to simple object allocator with epan scope > > ver4 | 17,704,132,561 (2.0% faster) | Change tvb allocator g_slice_* to simple object allocator with file scope > > > > I have uploaded patches & profiler outputs to: http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/tvb-opt-allocator/ > > > > Please review, and check what version is OK to be applied. > > > > > > P.S: I'll might find some time to do ver5 with slab allocator, but it'll look like object allocator API with epan scope. > > > > Cheers, > > Jakub. > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org ?subject=unsubscribe > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org ?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
