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..
