On 01/11/2010 09:35 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/11/2010 05:32 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 01/11/2010 09:31 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/11/2010 05:22 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Based on our experiences with virtio-net, what I'd suggest is to
make a lot of tunable options (ring size, various tx mitigation
schemes, timeout durations, etc) and then we can do some deep
performance studies to see how things interact with each other.
I think we should do that before making any changes because I'm
deeply concerned that we'll introduce significant performance
regressions.
I agree. We can start with this patch, with a tunable depth,
defaulting to current behaviour.
I wouldn't be opposed to that provided we made it clear that these
options were not supported long term. I don't want management tools
(like libvirt) to start relying on them.
x-option-name for experimental options?
-device disk,if=virtio,x-queue-depth-suppress-notify=4
Sounds reasonable to me.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
