Re: Performance demonstration?

Hi Dave,

With the latest XDP2 code, we can run in test/parser to get
performance. For Instance:

./test_parser -v -n 10000000 -i pcap,test-in.pcap -c xdp2 -o null
Packet 1 (repeated 10000000): avg 82 ns/p 12 Mpps
Packet 2 (repeated 10000000): avg 61 ns/p 16 Mpps
Packet 3 (repeated 10000000): avg 56 ns/p 17 Mpps
Packet 4 (repeated 10000000): avg 54 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 5 (repeated 10000000): avg 54 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 6 (repeated 10000000): avg 54 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 7 (repeated 10000000): avg 54 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 8 (repeated 10000000): avg 53 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 9 (repeated 10000000): avg 53 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 10 (repeated 10000000): avg 53 ns/p 18 Mpps
Packet 11 (repeated 10000000): avg 55 ns/p 18 Mpps
Total avg 57 ns/packet 17 Mpps

/test_parser -v -n 10000000 -i pcap,test-in.pcap -c xdp2opt -o null
Packet 1 (repeated 10000000): avg 48 ns/p 20 Mpps
Packet 2 (repeated 10000000): avg 41 ns/p 24 Mpps
Packet 3 (repeated 10000000): avg 40 ns/p 25 Mpps
Packet 4 (repeated 10000000): avg 40 ns/p 25 Mpps
Packet 5 (repeated 10000000): avg 40 ns/p 25 Mpps
Packet 6 (repeated 10000000): avg 41 ns/p 24 Mpps
Packet 7 (repeated 10000000): avg 42 ns/p 23 Mpps
Packet 8 (repeated 10000000): avg 40 ns/p 25 Mpps
Packet 9 (repeated 10000000): avg 41 ns/p 24 Mpps
Packet 10 (repeated 10000000): avg 42 ns/p 23 Mpps
Packet 11 (repeated 10000000): avg 42 ns/p 23 Mpps
Total avg 42 ns/packet 23 Mpps



The numbers are about 1/2 of what I see with the old PANDA code which
is surprising. We need to profile to see what's happening...

Tom


On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 1:13=E2=80=AFPM Tom Herbert <[email protected]> w=
rote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 8:57=E2=80=AFAM dave seddon <dave.seddon.ca@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I watched your FLOSS video
> > ([https://hackaday.com/2025/09/17/floss-weekly-episode-847-this-is-netw=
orking/](https://hackaday.com/2025/09/17/floss-weekly-episode-847-this-is-n=
etworking/))
> > on xdp2, and I'm very interested in your claim that the code-generated
> > parser outperforms a hand-coded one.
> >
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> It can be done via parser test. We compare flow dissector versus
> optimized XDP2 parser. Haven't done it since the last rebase, so we'll
> need to reproduce the numbers. On it.
>
> Tom
>
>
> Tom
>
> > Could you provide an example to demonstrate this? This would be a
> > great addition to the xdp2 README.md
> > ([https://github.com/xdp2-dev/xdp2/blob/main/README.md](https://github.=
com/xdp2-dev/xdp2/blob/main/README.md)).
> >
> > Demonstrating that xdp2 generates a faster parser than a widely used
> > parser, like your protobuf example, would significantly boost its
> > visibility.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Dave Seddon
> > +1 415 857 5102
> >