Status : bug fixed.
-
Abhinav
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:51 AM, abhinav narain
<abhinavnarai...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Hi guy,
> I have strace of both tcpdump and mac-analyzer(my tool) from the router
> attached.
>
> I cannot understand why the file descriptor number is different in tcpdump
> and my tool
> (3 and 4) respectively.
>
> Is this is of any significance ?
> I am run both the tools on the same interface created by using iw (iw phy
> phy0 .interface add phe0 ..)
>
> Any suggestions,
> please let me know.
>
> -
> Abhinav
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:22 AM, abhinav narain <
> abhinavnarai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
