If primary packet's sequence number not same with secondary packet's
sequence number, no need to compare the packet other field.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 net/colo-compare.c | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/colo-compare.c b/net/colo-compare.c
index 0f8e198..2caeb80 100644
--- a/net/colo-compare.c
+++ b/net/colo-compare.c
@@ -222,6 +222,12 @@ static int colo_packet_compare_tcp(Packet *spkt, Packet *ppkt)
     ptcp = (struct tcphdr *)ppkt->transport_header;
     stcp = (struct tcphdr *)spkt->transport_header;
 
+    if ((ptcp->th_flags & TH_SYN) != TH_SYN &&
+        ptcp->th_seq != stcp->th_seq) {
+        trace_colo_compare_main("colo_packet_compare_tcp seq not same");
+        return -1;
+    }
+
     /*
      * The 'identification' field in the IP header is *very* random
      * it almost never matches.  Fudge this by ignoring differences in
-- 
2.7.4

this title confused me

i think you want to express "only compare the packets that has the same sequence number"

and i think this optimization can not reduce this checkpoint optimization.

Thanks


On 07/07/2017 01:43 PM, Zhang Chen wrote:
> If primary packet's sequence number not same with secondary packet's
> sequence number, no need to compare the packet other field.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>   net/colo-compare.c | 6 ++++++
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/colo-compare.c b/net/colo-compare.c
> index 0f8e198..2caeb80 100644
> --- a/net/colo-compare.c
> +++ b/net/colo-compare.c
> @@ -222,6 +222,12 @@ static int colo_packet_compare_tcp(Packet *spkt, Packet *ppkt)
>       ptcp = (struct tcphdr *)ppkt->transport_header;
>       stcp = (struct tcphdr *)spkt->transport_header;
>   
> +    if ((ptcp->th_flags & TH_SYN) != TH_SYN &&
> +        ptcp->th_seq != stcp->th_seq) {
> +        trace_colo_compare_main("colo_packet_compare_tcp seq not same");
> +        return -1;
> +    }
> +
>       /*
>        * The 'identification' field in the IP header is *very* random
>        * it almost never matches.  Fudge this by ignoring differences in

On 07/07/2017 02:20 PM, Li Zhijian wrote:
> this title confused me
>
> i think you want to express "only compare the packets that has the 
> same sequence number"

OK, I will fix it in next version.

>
> and i think this optimization can not reduce this checkpoint 
> optimization.
>

In my test it can reduce many full comparison(like memcmp),
and in the future we have some job about this point.

Thanks
Zhang Chen

> Thanks
>
>
> On 07/07/2017 01:43 PM, Zhang Chen wrote:
>> If primary packet's sequence number not same with secondary packet's
>> sequence number, no need to compare the packet other field.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>   net/colo-compare.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/colo-compare.c b/net/colo-compare.c
>> index 0f8e198..2caeb80 100644
>> --- a/net/colo-compare.c
>> +++ b/net/colo-compare.c
>> @@ -222,6 +222,12 @@ static int colo_packet_compare_tcp(Packet *spkt, 
>> Packet *ppkt)
>>       ptcp = (struct tcphdr *)ppkt->transport_header;
>>       stcp = (struct tcphdr *)spkt->transport_header;
>>   +    if ((ptcp->th_flags & TH_SYN) != TH_SYN &&
>> +        ptcp->th_seq != stcp->th_seq) {
>> +        trace_colo_compare_main("colo_packet_compare_tcp seq not 
>> same");
>> +        return -1;
>> +    }
>> +
>>       /*
>>        * The 'identification' field in the IP header is *very* random
>>        * it almost never matches.  Fudge this by ignoring differences in
>
> .
>

-- 
Thanks
Zhang Chen