On 13/06/2011 03:50, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 08:31:23PM +0100, Ed W wrote: >> Obviously fixing iptables is desirable, but is it possible to improve >> performance > > I think your time would be much better spent adding a sane version of > iptables (without the hideous dlopen abomination) to Busybox. Then the > problem would be a non-issue.
Ahead of you already (kind of). If you check the iptables mailing lists you will see that the latest iptables is now free of near all excess modprobe calls bar a single initial call. However, I disagree with your point. Busybox contains an implementation of modprobe which is gaspingly slow. Now we can: - tell the world that modules are unsupported when using busybox, and recompile the kernel to be module free - patch every application in the world to avoid calling modprobe Or we could notice that an alternative implementation of modprobe is some 10-100x faster and consider that the busybox implementation is possibly suboptimal? Sure -ENOPATCH. But that's also because I have not developed in busybox and please show a touch of compassion that I have spent some hours poking around trying to benchmark where the problem might lay. Seems at present like it's not clear whether I'm barking up the wrong tree that it's the read() calls vs needing to read the binary files? Perhaps folks could humour me a little and we could at least understand where the performance problem comes from? Please note that my kernel is almost completely kernel module free - I'm trying to solve a performance problem when there aren't any modules being loaded... Thanks Ed W _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
