On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 23:29:59 -0700, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote: > On 10/8/2019 5:49 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > I asked you to add numbers for handling those use cases in the kernel > > directly. > > Forgot to explicitly mention that I didn't see any regressions with > xdp1, xdp2 or xdpsock in default mode with these patches. Performance > remained the same.
I'm not looking for regressions. The in-kernel path is faster, and should be used for speeding things up rather than a "direct path to user space". Your comparison should have 3 numbers - current AF_XDP, patched AF_XDP, in-kernel handling.
