Re: Idea for faster dissection on second pas

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Anders Broman
> <anders.broman () ericsson com> wrote:
> > Not really as the RTP dissector is weak and defaulted off and I'm only interested in performance improvements at 
> > this point.
> > But it brings up a question; some of the heuristic  dissectors are for "unusual" protocols and not perfect and some 
> > of the "port" dissectors
> > Are registered in the epithermal port range (I think) should we default those to off?
>
> OK, so I think we have two different concerns here. On one hand we
> want to try to dissect as much as possible, which implies adding lots
> of registrations and heuristics. On the other hand we want to dissect
> as fast as possible, which means removing unnecessary registrations
> and heuristics. I guess we have to strike a balance, though I'm not
> sure what that balance should be.
>
> I'm *assuming* that the actual thing you're trying to speed up is
> filtering - that is the most common cause of re-dissection that I'm
> aware of. Just loading the file only does one pass, so second-pass
> improvements won't actually help on the initial load. In this case,
> there might be ways to speed up filtering by caching things in order
> to completely skip dissection for some packets. I'll have to think on
> this.
>
> If you're trying to speed up something other than filtering, it would
> help to know what that was :)

Just for fun I hacked together a patch that caches the entire tree
generated by each dissection. This uses a frightening amount of memory
(an extra ~250MB per 10,000 packets on top of what Wireshark already
uses) but makes filtering near-instantaneous for as large a file as I
was able to load.

Note that the patch is an awful hack, and has several obvious issues.
It also doesn't seem to quite work - certain filters returned only a
subset of the packets they should have - but that's what you get for a
proof-of-concept. If people like the idea I can try and clean it up.

Evan

Attachment: cache_all_trees.patch
Description:

___________________________________________________________________________
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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe