Hi Raviraj, You could be interested in taking a look at "Documentation/networking/packet_mmap.txt" (this talks about mmap()'d packet ring implementation for AF_PACKET). Rgds, Eduardo Panisset. On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:09 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:16:01 +0530 > >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:06 AM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> From: raviraj joshi <raviraj.j1991@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:34:22 +0530 >>> >>>> We have decided to use PF_RING(a kernel module to capture packets) for >>>> the same due to the number of advantages. >>> >>> What "advantages"? The AF_PACKET socket layer already upstream in the >>> kernel supports every relevant performance feature PF_RING does, and >>> then some. >> I refered to the document on "A Measurement Study of Packet Reception >> using Linux"[1] which said pf_ring maintains >> a ring buffer, so we dont have to issue a receive system call for each >> packet in contrast to AF_PACKET which issues a system call for each >> packet(pls correct me if i am wrong). > > AF_PACKET supports mmap()'d packet rings, and even supports variable > packet lengths within those rings. > > AF_PACKET supports all the worthwhile performance features of PR_RING > and it's upstream, stop kidding yourself. > > I'm really sick and tired of people saying PF_RING is better than > what we have upstream, it really isn't. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
