On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 05:08:04PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Evan Huus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Now I'm wondering how much of this could be alleviated somehow by a more > > efficient tree representation... > > The answer is apparently lots :)
We've already had similar benchmark result done, while removing emem slabs: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201303/msg00101.html http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201303/msg00105.html > I tweaked some things in r52568, r52569 and r52573 that had a fairly > substantial improvement when dissecting with a tree. "tshark -V" is as > much as 18% faster in my tests, and filtering should improve a little > as well, though that is much harder to measure. Still good we regain this performance (and even better tree free now is O(1)), even if tshark -V might be not normal use case. Thanks. Cheers, Kuba. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
