Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:37:55 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org> Cc: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <ae@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>, Pawel Tyll <ptyll@nitronet.pl> Subject: Re: IPFW eXtended tables [Was: Re: IPFW tables, dummynet and IPv6] Message-ID: <20111225193755.GB10707@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <4EF7719A.8020902@FreeBSD.org> References: <1674097252.20111218125051@nitronet.pl> <4EEDD566.8020609@FreeBSD.org> <20111220163355.GA87584@DataIX.net> <4EF73A4A.3050902@FreeBSD.org> <1413850829.20111225184712@nitronet.pl> <AA3C6FCC-0817-4108-A107-3367A6F14757@lists.zabbadoz.net> <4EF7719A.8020902@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:55:22PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > > On 25. Dec 2011, at 17:47 , Pawel Tyll wrote: > > > >> Hi Alexander, > >> > >>> Changes: > >>> * Tables (actually, radix trees) are now created/freed on demand. > >> Does this mean IPFW_TABLES_MAX can now be safely set to arbitrarily > >> high number that would allow flexible numbering of tables? Arbitrarily > >> high being 0xFFFFFFFF or some other nice large number that won't step > >> on my ideas :) > At the moment maximum number of tables remains the same however it is > now possible to define IPFW_TABLES_MAX to 65k without much (memory) > overhead. Since pointer to tables are stored in array, defining 2^32 > tables require 4G * (8+8+1) memory for pointers only. perhaps you could reuse some of the infrastructure i have for looking up rule numbers -- i keep them sorted into an array (and if i am not mistaken there are generation numbers to validate pointers) so lookups are O(log N) in the worst case, and direct lookups are O(1) after the first attempt. cheers luigihome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111225193755.GB10707>