On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:01:22PM +0800, Asias He wrote:
On 06/16/2011 10:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:53:34PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the second version of the Native Linux KVM tool!
We’re
now officially aiming for
On 06/16/2011 07:22 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Christoph Hellwigh...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:57:36PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Uh-oh. Someone needs to apply this patch to sync_file_range():
There actually are a few cases where using it makes sense. [...]
Such as?
On 2011年06月15日 23:53, Pekka Enberg wrote:
or alternatively, if you already have a kernel source tree:
git remote add kvm-tool git://github.com/penberg/linux-kvm.git
git remote update
git checkout -b kvm-tool/master kvm-tool
I tried this, but it do not work, there is something wrong
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 06:00 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:50 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:48 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka
On 06/16/2011 08:03 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:50 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Each virtio-blk device can process requests regardless of other
virtio-blk devices, which means that we can do parallel requests for
devices.
Within each device, we support parallel requests in
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
That's probably why it's fast, it doesn't preserve data integrity :(
Actually, I misread the code. It does unstable writes but it does do
fsync() on FLUSH.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Pekka Enberg
* Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
qemu-system-x86_64 -drive
file=/dev/shm/test.qcow2,cache=writeback,if=virtio
Wouldn't this still be using threaded AIO mode? I thought KVM tools used
native AIO?
We don't
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
- executing AIO in the vcpu thread eats up precious vcpu execution
time: combined QCOW2 throughput would be limited by a single
core's performance, and any time spent on QCOW2 processing would
not be spent
* Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
- executing AIO in the vcpu thread eats up precious vcpu execution
time: combined QCOW2 throughput would be limited by a single
core's performance, and any time
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@elte.hu wrote:
- executing AIO in the vcpu thread eats up precious vcpu execution
time: combined QCOW2 throughput would be limited by a single
core's performance, and any time spent on QCOW2 processing would
not be spent running the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
And btw, we use sync_file_range()
Which doesn't help you at all. sync_file_range is just a hint for VM
writeback, but never commits filesystem metadata nor the physical
disk's write cache. In short it's a completely dangerous
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
And btw, we use sync_file_range()
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
Which doesn't help you at all. sync_file_range is just a hint for VM
writeback, but never commits
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:34:04PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi Christoph,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
And btw, we use sync_file_range()
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org
wrote:
Which doesn't help you at all.
* Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
What's the right thing to do here? Is fdatasync() sufficient?
Yes.
Prasad, Pekka, mind redoing the numbers with fdatasync()?
I'd be surprised if they were significantly worse but it has to be
done to have apples-to-apples numbers.
Thanks,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
You also missed:
This system call does not flush disk write caches and thus does not
provide any data integrity on systems with volatile disk write
caches.
so it's not safe if you either have a cache, or are
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:57:36PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Uh-oh. Someone needs to apply this patch to sync_file_range():
There actually are a few cases where using it makes sense. It's just
the minority.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a
* Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:57:36PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Uh-oh. Someone needs to apply this patch to sync_file_range():
There actually are a few cases where using it makes sense. [...]
Such as? I don't think apps can actually know whether
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:22:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Such as? I don't think apps can actually know whether disk blocks
have been 'instantiated' by a particular filesystem or not, so the
manpage:
In general they can't. The only good use case for sync_file_range
is to paper
* Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:22:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Such as? I don't think apps can actually know whether disk blocks
have been 'instantiated' by a particular filesystem or not, so
the manpage:
In general they can't. The only
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:40:45PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Filesystems that cannot guarantee that should map their
sync_file_range() implementation to fdatasync() or so, right?
Filesystems aren't even told about sync_file_range, it's purely a VM
thing, which is the root of the problem.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:53:34PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the second version of the Native Linux KVM tool! We’re
now officially aiming for merging to mainline in 3.1.
Highlights:
- Experimental GUI support using SDL and VNC
- SMP support.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See the
following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888
It turns out we were benchmarking the wrong guest kernel version for
On 06/16/2011 10:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:53:34PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the second version of the Native Linux KVM tool!
We’re
now officially aiming for merging to mainline in 3.1.
Highlights:
- Experimental GUI
On 06/16/2011 09:48 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See the
following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888
It turns out we were
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:50 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:48 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See
the
following URL for test result
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:50 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:48 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See the
following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See the
following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888
This is surprising. How is qemu invoked?
btw the dump above is a little hard to interpret.
--
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See
the
following URL for test result details: https://gist.github.com/1026888
This is surprising. How is
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio benchmarks. See
the
following URL for test result
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:13 +0100, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Sasha Levin levinsasha...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:13 +0100, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enberg penb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivity a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53
On 06/15/2011 10:53 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
Hi all,
We’re proud to announce the second version of the Native Linux KVM tool! We’re
now officially aiming for merging to mainline in 3.1.
Highlights:
- Experimental GUI support using SDL and VNC
- SMP support. tools/kvm/ now has a highly
On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2 image read-write support beating Qemu in fio
On 16.06.2011, at 00:04, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
- Fast QCOW2
On 06/15/2011 05:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.06.2011, at 00:04, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On 06/15/2011 05:20 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/15/2011 05:07 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 16.06.2011, at 00:04, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM,
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Avi Kivitya...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/15/2011 06:53 PM, Pekka
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws wrote:
That's probably why it's fast, it doesn't preserve data integrity :(
Actually, I misread the code. It does unstable writes but it does do
fsync() on FLUSH.
Yes. That's fine, right? Or did we misread how virtio
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
wrote:
On 06/15/2011 03:13 PM, Prasad Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Pekka Enbergpenb...@kernel.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Alexander Graf ag...@suse.de wrote:
qemu-system-x86_64 -drive file=/dev/shm/test.qcow2,cache=writeback,if=virtio
Wouldn't this still be using threaded AIO mode? I thought KVM tools used
native AIO?
We don't use AIO at all. It's just normal read()/write() with
41 matches
Mail list logo
