On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:15 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:51:24 +0800 Jason Xing wrote: > > > > Sorry for missing the question. I'm not very familiar with how to run the > > > > test based on AF_PACKET. Could you point it out for me? Thanks. > > > > > > > > I remember the very initial version of AF_XDP was pure AF_PACKET. So > > > > may I ask why we expect to see the comparison between them? > > > > > > Pretty sure I told you this at least twice but the point of AF_XDP > > > is the ZC mode. Without a comparison to AF_PACKET which has similar > > > functionality optimizing AF_XDP copy mode seems unjustified. > > > > Oh, I see. Let me confirm again that you expect to see a demo like the > > copy mode of AF_PACKET v4 [1] and see the differences in performance, > > right? > > > > If AF_PACKET eventually outperforms AF_XDP, do we need to reinvent the > > copy mode based on AF_PACKET? > > > > And if a quick/simple implementation is based on AF_PACKET, it > > shouldn't be that easy to use the same benchmark to see which one is > > better. That means inventing a new unified benchmark tool is > > necessary? > > To be honest I suspect you can get an LLM to convert your AF_XDP test > to use AF_PACKET.. Okay, allow me to spend more time on af_packet before getting my hands dirty... Converting xdpsock should not be that easy, I feel... But I will give it a try first. Thanks, Jason
