[Click] Re?: Re: Kernel mode with a recent kernel

[Beyers Cronje]

According to figure 5
http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/20110729-rizzo-infocom.pdf  there
seems to be a significant improvement over netmapcap using native netmap
(7500kpps vs 9660kpps), so this sounds like a good idea.

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Eddie Kohler <ekohler at gmail.com> wrote:

> Luigi,
>
> As you know I think this is awesome.
>
> Should we start working on a direct linkup between Click and netmap, rather
> than using libpcap as an intermediate?
>
> Eddie
>
>
> On 12/16/2011 10:32 AM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:57:00PM +0100, Fabrice Schuler wrote:
> >> Hi Eddy,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your answer.
> >>
> >> In a first time, we could probably only use kernel mode without
> polling, so patchless click could be fine. But on a longer run, I would say
> that yes, we will need polling mode.
> >> I will try patchless mode in a first time, and will still try to work
> to use polling in a second time.
> >
> > If you are interested in polling because of performance, you should
> > really consider using click-userspace with netmap (currently on
> > FreeBSD, but linux support is really close now)
> >
> > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/
> >
> > In our tests it seems to beat in-kernel click by a factor of 2,
> > for I/O intensive tasks (where polling makes the difference).
> >
> > http://info.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/netmap/20110729-rizzo-infocom.pdf
> >
> > cheers
> > luigi
> > _______________________________________________
> > click mailing list
> > click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> > https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
> _______________________________________________
> click mailing list
> click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
>