Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Idea for faster dissection on second pas
From: Evan Huus <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:45:54 -0400
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Evan Huus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Anders Broman
> <[email protected]> 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.


Attachment: cache_all_trees.patch
Description: Binary data