sip-router writes: is there any performance penalty compared to current version when pvs are not used?

/*compile the expressions, and if ok, build the rule */ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values) @@ -359,9 +463,10 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values) pcre *match_comp, *subst_comp; struct subst_expr *repl_comp; dpl_node_t * new_rule; - str match_exp, subst_exp, repl_exp, attrs; + str match_exp, subst_exp, repl_exp, attrs, tmp; int matchop; int cap_cnt=0; + unsigned int pv_flags = 0; matchop = VAL_INT(values+2); @@ -377,11 +482,21 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values) GET_STR_VALUE(match_exp, values, 3); if(matchop == DP_REGEX_OP){ - match_comp = reg_ex_comp(match_exp.s, &cap_cnt); - if(!match_comp){ - LM_ERR("failed to compile match expression %.*s\n", - match_exp.len, match_exp.s); - goto err; + if(check_pv_marker(match_exp, &tmp)) + pv_flags |= DP_PV_MATCH_M; + if(pv_check_format(&tmp)<0){ + pv_flags &= ~DP_PV_MATCH_MASK; + match_comp = reg_ex_comp(match_exp.s, &cap_cnt); + if(!match_comp){ + LM_ERR("failed to compile match expression %.*s\n", + match_exp.len, match_exp.s); + goto err; + } + } + else{ + pv_flags |= DP_PV_MATCH; + LM_DBG("match_exp DP_PV_MATCH_MASK\n"); + match_comp = NULL; } } @@ -398,26 +513,38 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values) GET_STR_VALUE(subst_exp, values, 5); if(subst_exp.s && subst_exp.len){ - subst_comp = reg_ex_comp(subst_exp.s, &cap_cnt); - if(!subst_comp){ - LM_ERR("failed to compile subst expression %.*s\n", - subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s); - goto err; + if(check_pv_marker(subst_exp, &tmp)) + pv_flags |= DP_PV_SUBST_M; + if(pv_check_format(&tmp)<0){ + pv_flags &= ~DP_PV_SUBST_MASK; + subst_comp = reg_ex_comp(subst_exp.s, &cap_cnt); + if(!subst_comp){ + LM_ERR("failed to compile subst expression %.*s\n", + subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s); + goto err; + } + if (cap_cnt > MAX_REPLACE_WITH) { + LM_ERR("subst expression %.*s has too many sub-expressions\n", + subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s); + goto err; + } } - if (cap_cnt > MAX_REPLACE_WITH) { - LM_ERR("subst expression %.*s has too many sub-expressions\n", - subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s); - goto err; + else{ + pv_flags |= DP_PV_SUBST; + LM_DBG("subst_exp DP_PV_SUBST_MASK\n"); + subst_comp = NULL; } } - if (repl_comp && (cap_cnt < repl_comp->max_pmatch) && - (repl_comp->max_pmatch != 0)) { - LM_ERR("repl_exp %.*s refers to %d sub-expressions, but " - "subst_exp %.*s has only %d\n", - repl_exp.len, repl_exp.s, repl_comp->max_pmatch, - subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s, cap_cnt); - goto err; + if((pv_flags&DP_PV_MASK)==0) { + if (repl_comp && (cap_cnt < repl_comp->max_pmatch) && + (repl_comp->max_pmatch != 0)) { + LM_ERR("repl_exp %.*s refers to %d sub-expressions, but " + "subst_exp %.*s has only %d\n", + repl_exp.len, repl_exp.s, repl_comp->max_pmatch, + subst_exp.len, subst_exp.s, cap_cnt); + goto err; + } } new_rule = (dpl_node_t *)shm_malloc(sizeof(dpl_node_t)); @@ -450,6 +577,7 @@ dpl_node_t * build_rule(db_val_t * values) new_rule->match_comp = match_comp; new_rule->subst_comp = subst_comp; new_rule->repl_comp = repl_comp; + new_rule->pv_flags = pv_flags; return new_rule; @@ -550,6 +678,85 @@ err: return -1; }

Victor Seva writes: performance penalty during load of rules from dialplan table is fine as long as there is no penalty to dp_translate() call.

#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; }