On 05/17/2014 11:14 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Victor Seva writes:
is there any performance penalty compared to current version when pvs are not used?
Calling to the new core function pv_check_format(str *) in the load process in order to detect if the match/subst rule has pv vars.
performance penalty during load of rules from dialplan table is fine as long as there is no penalty to dp_translate() call.
You can see that if the flag is not matched nothing changes there.
#define DP_MAX_ATTRS_LEN 128 static char dp_attrs_buf[DP_MAX_ATTRS_LEN+1]; int translate(struct sip_msg *msg, str input, str *output, dpl_id_p idp, str *attrs) { dpl_node_p rulep;
- dpl_pv_node_p rule_pv; dpl_index_p indexp;
- pcre *match_comp = NULL; int user_len, rez; char b;
@@ -339,7 +486,27 @@ search_rule:
case DP_REGEX_OP: LM_DBG("regex operator testing\n");
rez = pcre_exec(rulep->match_comp, NULL, input.s, input.len,
if(rulep->pv_flags&DP_PV_MATCH) {if(!msg) {LM_ERR("Cannot translate using a regex match with pv ""without message\n");continue;}rule_pv = get_pv_rule(rulep, idp->dp_id, user_len);if(rule_pv) {if(build_pv_comp(msg, rule_pv)<0){LM_ERR("error rule regex comp. Skip this\n");continue;}match_comp = rule_pv->match_comp;}else {LM_ERR("pv rule not found.Skip this\n");continue;}}else match_comp = rulep->match_comp;rez = pcre_exec(match_comp, NULL, input.s, input.len, 0, 0, NULL, 0); break;@@ -382,8 +549,9 @@ search_rule: return -1;
repl:
- LM_DBG("found a matching rule %p: pr %i, match_exp %.*s\n",
rulep, rulep->pr, rulep->match_exp.len, rulep->match_exp.s);
LM_DBG("found a matching rule %p: pr %i, match_exp %.*s pv_flags:%d\n",
rulep, rulep->pr, rulep->match_exp.len, rulep->match_exp.s,rulep->pv_flags);if(attrs) { attrs->len = 0;
@@ -405,7 +573,10 @@ repl: } }
- if(rule_translate(msg, input, rulep, output)!=0){
- if(!(rulep->pv_flags&DP_PV_MASK))
rule_pv = NULL;- if(rule_translate(msg, input, rulep, rule_pv, output)!=0){ LM_ERR("could not build the output\n"); return -1; }