From: Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>
To: Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de>,
Linux kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Unaligend accesses nulldevname
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:01:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040111100137.GH20706@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040107230011.GG23133@tpkurt.garloff.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2050 bytes --]
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:00:11AM +0100, Kurt Garloff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found an excessive amount of unaligned accesses on my AXP workstation
> and tracked it down to ip_packet_match() in the ip_tables module.
> indev and outdev are not properly aligned if set to nulldevname in
> ipt_do_table().
> This destroys the benefits of comparing names in units of (long) and
> on architectures with expensive unaligned accesses (such as ia64 or
> alpha), it even hurts a lot.
Thanks for submitting your patch, this is the same bug report as
https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84
> Find attached a patch against 2.6.0. A similar patch is needed for 2.4,
> also attached.
the fix is already in our patch-o-matic CVS tree, and I'm going to
submit this to davem together with some other fixes I have pending.
> Looking at ip_packet_match(), I have two more thoughts:
> * It should not be inlined. It's too large to benefit from inlining,
> IMHO. (OTOH, it's only called from one place, so it does not
> really matter.)
That is the idea. It's just split in two functions to make it more
readable. It's never intended to be called from somewhere else.
> * There's a comment about the compiler being able to unroll the 2/4
> (64/32bit) iter loop which is not completely appropriate: We don't
> pass -funroll-loops, so gcc does not do it :-(
> It would be beneficial though.
I'm not a compiler geek. Thanks for pointing this out, I will do some
testing and look at the compiler output to see what is happening.
> Regards,
> --
> Kurt Garloff <garloff@suse.de> Cologne, DE
--
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org> http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
"Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
on while IP was being designed." -- Paul Vixie
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-11 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-07 23:00 Kurt Garloff
2004-01-11 10:01 ` Harald Welte [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040111100137.GH20706@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org \
--to=laforge@netfilter.org \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®