On 07/17/2012 07:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If
On 07/17/2012 09:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone
On 07/17/2012 12:21 PM, Asias He wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really 2 syscalls per request.
Also, is there anything we can improve?
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really 2 syscalls per
Il 17/07/2012 11:21, Asias He ha scritto:
It depends. Like vhost-scsi, vhost-blk has the problem of a crippled
feature set: no support for block device formats, non-raw protocols,
etc. This makes it different from vhost-net.
Data-plane qemu also has this cripppled feature set problem, no?
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:52:10AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:32:45AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 11:21, Asias He ha scritto:
It depends. Like vhost-scsi, vhost-blk has the problem of a crippled
feature set: no support for block device formats, non-raw protocols,
etc. This makes it different from vhost-net.
Il 17/07/2012 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
So it begs the question, is it going to be used in production, or just a
useful reference tool?
Sticking to raw already makes virtio-blk faster, doesn't it?
In that vhost-blk looks to me like just another optimization option.
Ideally I
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:14:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
So it begs the question, is it going to be used in production, or just a
useful reference tool?
Sticking to raw already makes virtio-blk faster, doesn't it?
In that
Il 17/07/2012 12:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
Ok, that would make more sense. One difference between vhost-blk and
vhost-net is that for vhost-blk there are also management actions that
would trigger the switch, for example a live snapshot.
So a prerequisite for vhost-blk would be that
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 12:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
Ok, that would make more sense. One difference between vhost-blk and
vhost-net is that for vhost-blk there are also management actions that
would trigger the switch, for
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/16/2012 07:58 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Does the vhost-blk implementation do anything fundamentally different
from userspace? Where is the overhead that userspace virtio-blk has?
Currently, no. But we could play with
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:42:13PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
this approach is good or not.
Stefan
Why is it?
Because there might be a fix to kvmtool which closes the gap. It
would be embarassing if
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
this approach is good or not.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
This patchset adds vhost-blk support. vhost-blk is a in kernel virito-blk
device accelerator. Compared to userspace virtio-blk implementation, vhost-blk
gives about 5% to 15% performance improvement.
Why is it 5-15% faster?
Hi folks,
This patchset adds vhost-blk support. vhost-blk is a in kernel virito-blk
device accelerator. Compared to userspace virtio-blk implementation, vhost-blk
gives about 5% to 15% performance improvement.
Asias He (5):
aio: Export symbols and struct kiocb_batch for in kernel aio usage
Hello Jeff,
On 07/13/2012 12:06 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Asias He as...@redhat.com writes:
Hi folks,
This patchset adds vhost-blk support. vhost-blk is a in kernel virito-blk
device accelerator. Compared to userspace virtio-blk implementation, vhost-blk
gives about 5% to 15% performance
24 matches
Mail list logo
