On 01/01/2012 05:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
By the way, drivers for solid-state devices can set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
to hint that seek time optimizations may be sub-optimal. NBD and
other virtual/pseudo device drivers set this flag. Should virtio-blk
set it and how does it affect performance?
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/01/2012 05:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
By the way, drivers for solid-state devices can set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
to hint that seek time optimizations may be sub-optimal. NBD and
other virtual/pseudo device drivers set this
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 04:45:42PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
win. The fact that you added batching suggests there is some benefit
to what the request-based code path does. So find out what's good
about the request-based code path and how to get the best of both
worlds.
Batching pretty
On 01/02/2012 05:15 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
When QEMU uses O_DIRECT, the guest should not use QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
unless it is active for the host disk as well. (In doubt, as is the
case for remote hosts accessed over NFS, I would also avoid NONROT
and allow more coalescing).
Do we
On 01/02/2012 06:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sun, Jan 01, 2012 at 04:45:42PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
win. The fact that you added batching suggests there is some benefit
to what the request-based code path does. So find out what's good
about the request-based code path and
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:18:13PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I tried a few times, and the only constant measureable
thing was that it regressed performance when used for rotating devices
in a few benchmarks.
Were you trying with cache=none or writeback? For cache=none,
that's exactly
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:57:40PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
If you're stumped by the performance perhaps compare blktraces of the
request approach
On 01/01/2012 06:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Minchan Kimminc...@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:57:40PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Minchan Kimminc...@kernel.org wrote:
If you're stumped by the performance
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote from hch
This patchset allows the virtio-blk driver to support much
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05:38AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
May be using deadline or noop in guest is better to benchmark against
PCI-E based flash.
Good suggestion.
I tested it by deadline on guest side.
The result is not good.
Although gap is within noise, Batch BIO's random
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:45:06AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:05:38AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
May be using deadline or noop in guest is better to benchmark against
PCI-E based flash.
Good suggestion.
I tested it by deadline on guest side.
The
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:57:40PM +, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:00 AM, Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Hi Sasha!
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:28:52AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 10:00 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote from
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:00:48AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote from hch
This patchset allows the virtio-blk driver to support much higher
Hi Vivek,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:11:17PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:00:48AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote from hch
This patchset allows the virtio-blk driver to support much higher IOP
rates which can be driven out of modern PCI-e flash devices. At
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:00:48 +0900, Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote from hch
This patchset allows the virtio-blk driver to support
Hi Rusty,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 03:38:03PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:00:48 +0900, Minchan Kim minc...@kernel.org wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 10:00 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
This patch is follow-up of Christohp Hellwig's work
[RFC: -make_request support for virtio-blk].
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1199763
Quote from hch
This patchset allows the virtio-blk driver to support much higher IOP
19 matches
Mail list logo
