On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:51:24 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:

quoted

quoted

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..