On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 8:29 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:01:03 +0800 Jason Xing wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 1:44 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 21:53:33 +0800 Jason Xing wrote: > > > > copy mode: 1,109,754 pps > > > > batch mode: 2,393,498 pps (+115.6%) > > > > xmit.more: 3,024,110 pps (+172.5%) > > > > zc mode: 14,879,414 pps > > > > > > I've asked you multiple times to add comparison with the performance > > > of AF_PACKET. What's the disconnect? > > > > 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? [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20171031124145.9667-1-bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx/ Thanks, Jason
