Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Profiled dumpcap

[Anders Broman <anders.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes I just started to look at this myself and was surprised to see g_log() one should have expected that if no log handler was connected there be no cost of the operation…

Regards

Anders

 

From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: den 8 maj 2014 18:24
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Profiled dumpcap

 

I assume that there was no other output (no logging or anything)? On my reading of the dump, most of the time is spent manipulating strings due to logging from the g_log function. The main caller seems to be capture_loop_write_packet_cb, so removing the logging call at dumpcap.c:4051 might be worth trying.

Evan

 

On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Anders Broman <anders.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

In case someone is interested...

 

Capturing on 'eth1'

File: /tmp/wireshark_pcapng_eth1_20140508174557_h4aOLn

Packets captured: 2756

Packets received/dropped on interface 'eth1': 2756/0 (pcap:0/dumpcap:0/flushed:0/ps_ifdrop:0) (100.0%)

==16851==

==16851== Events    : Ir

==16851== Collected : 10910499

==16851==

==16851== I   refs:      10,910,499

 

Regards

Anders

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe