Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/9] xsk: improvement performance in copy mode

[Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:15 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> 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