[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250825172928.234fd75c@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 17:29:28 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
jonathan.lemon@...il.com, sdf@...ichev.me, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
horms@...nel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] xsk: improvement performance in copy
mode
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:01:03 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 1:44 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists