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