On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Asias He <asias.he...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Stefan > > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Asias He <as...@redhat.com> 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 <as...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> 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
I haven't updated those results in a long time because I no longer use that benchmarking environment. Stefan _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
