Hi, Stefan On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Asias He <[email protected]> wrote: >> Benchmark shows small performance improvement on fusion io device. >> >> Before: >> seq-read : io=1,024MB, bw=19,982KB/s, iops=39,964, runt= 52475msec >> seq-write: io=1,024MB, bw=20,321KB/s, iops=40,641, runt= 51601msec >> rnd-read : io=1,024MB, bw=15,404KB/s, iops=30,808, runt= 68070msec >> rnd-write: io=1,024MB, bw=14,776KB/s, iops=29,552, runt= 70963msec >> >> After: >> seq-read : io=1,024MB, bw=20,343KB/s, iops=40,685, runt= 51546msec >> seq-write: io=1,024MB, bw=20,803KB/s, iops=41,606, runt= 50404msec >> rnd-read : io=1,024MB, bw=16,221KB/s, iops=32,442, runt= 64642msec >> rnd-write: io=1,024MB, bw=15,199KB/s, iops=30,397, runt= 68991msec >> >> Signed-off-by: Asias He <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 10 ---------- >> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > Thanks for providing performance results. It's a bit scary that this > unused list has an impact...I'm sure we have worse things elsewhere in > the KVM storage code path.
Do you find any worse things? I saw your trace work here: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio/Block/Latency > Reviewed-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]> Thanks for reviewing! -- Asias He _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
