Re: [PATCH] AND and OR ACLs

On 05/02/2013 06:57 AM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 05/01/2013 07:28 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 2/05/2013 10:52 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 12/21/2012 02:05 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> Eureka. That would explain why I have not been able to see a regression.
>> The previous behaviour we would look at teh logs and see a full ACL test
>> with no re-scan of a part in the middle, nowdays we can clearly see the
>> line being restarted from scratch. The above would mean that previously
>> we were overlooking a partial scan from head to some position Foo before
>> the scan which was seen as being the "whole" scan.
>>
>> My comment stands though, the from-line restart is an artifact of your
>> change. As you say it was from-head. Both situations are bad, with the
>> current somewhat better than before.
>
> Sorry, you lost me here. Both the old and the current code restart from
> the head (i.e., the beginning) of the current acl_access rule:
>
>>>> - const ACLList *node = head;
>
> vs.
>
>>>> + for (const ACLList *node = head;
>
>
> and do node matches for every node in that rule (if all acls match):
>
>>>> - while (node) {
>>>> - bool nodeMatched = node->matches(this);
> ...
>>>> - node = node->next;
>
> vs.
>
>>>> + for (const ACLList *node = head; node; node = node->next) {
>>>> + ... resultBeforeAsync = matchNode(*node, fast);
>
>
> I do not know why you saw something in the logs that you do see now, but
> there is no difference as far as this from-head node rematching aspect
> is concerned (AFAIK).

This is how these checks done in squid-2.6 too, so I believe that this
is by design.

The question is if there are reasons for this, or we can speed up the
processing avoiding to recheck acls which already had checked.

Regards,
   Christos

>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex.
>
>
Received on Thu May 02 2013 - 15:18:09 MDT