[SSSD] [PATCH] When ldap_group_nesting_level was reached, the LDAP provider, tried to link group members with groups outside nesting, limit.
Simo Sorce
simo at redhat.com
Tue Aug 7 17:35:15 UTC 2012
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 13:15 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 19:08 +0200, Michal Zidek wrote:
> > On 08/07/2012 04:11 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 15:40 +0200, Michal Zidek wrote:
> > >> On 08/06/2012 08:57 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >>> The major question I have is that this new code introduces O(N^2)
> > >>> behavior, if there are more then a handful of groups it will be quite
> > >>> costly. Can we find a way that is not so expensive ?
> > >> I think this is not a big problem. If I understand the code correctly,
> > >> the inner cycle only iterates through potential direct parent groups (we
> > >> add group member to them later) and it is unlikely to be a big number in
> > >> real scenarios (Or am I wrong? Is it common that a group has so many
> > >> direct parents that it would be expensive?).
> > > On what data do you base your assertion about probability, not saying
> > > you are wrong, but is it a gut feeling or do you have actual data ?
> > >
> >
> > It is just my feeling. Database with many groups where each has few
> > DIRECT parents sounds OK, but
> > many groups with many direct parents sound like a mess to me. But maybe
> > I am wrong, I tested it only
> > on a very small test database. If you have a large test database with
> > complex group hierarchy, you could
> > test how much time sssd_be spends in this loops.
> >
> > Another thing to consider is that this process only takes place when the
> > information about group
> > memberships can not be retrieved from local cache.
> >
> > > You may want to add a talloc_free(add); before the continue; but you
> > > could get even more gains if you instead of freeing the add array at
> > > each loop always just realloc it if grp_count is > than the previous
> > > grp_count. Allocations tend to be expensive and here you can spare a
> > > lot of allocation given you always leave the array in consistent state
> > > by adding the terminating NULL.
> >
> > Good idea, I rewrote it using the talloc_realloc. Updated patch attached.
>
>
> My motto here would be "Get it right first". If we find out later that
> it's causing a bottleneck, we'll optimize it later. We don't have any
> real-world data suggesting that O(n^2) is too slow for this particular
> operation.
Ok, makes sense, and ack to the last incarnation of the patch.
Good work Michal.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
More information about the sssd-devel
mailing list