Hi Guy,
This is one thing I am confused about.
I am right now setting the sigprocmask
in the callback function :
pkt_callback(...){
if (sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &block_set, NULL) < 0) {
perror("sigprocmask");
exit(1);
}
....code ...
if (sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &block_set, NULL) < 0) {
perror("sigprocmask");
exit(1);
}
}
When I turned down all the alarms, the CPU % usage came down,
as you were also asking to try out.
I think there is lot of overhead in setting up the signal masks etc.
Can i instead set the masks in the main() function before and after calling,
pcap_loop(), which will avoid this overhead ?
I am not sure, I think this will set the masks for the code that pcap runs,
right ?
and block all the signals, which pcap might be using for any purpose, if
any.
Am I right to wrap the pcap_loop() inside the sigprocmask() block, instead
of using
it in callback function (which I am doing now ) ?
<pseudo code>
sigprocmask(block) ..
pcap_loop()
sigprocmask(unblock) ..
</pseudo code>
How will the signals work then ?
-
Abhinav
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:06 AM, abhinav narain
<abhinavnarai...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM, abhinav narain <abhinavnarai...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> hi Guy,
>>
>> What happens if you eliminate that (and any code paths that eliminating
>>> that breaks)?
>>>
>>>
> The biggest issue for me to understand is, why is the CPU usage going up
> when
> two instances of the tool run simultaneously. It doesn't have high usage
> for single instance.
> Please let me know, if you have any suggestions where I can make
> my headway to investigate.
> -
> Abhinav
>
>
_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
