[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49ab1as91g.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:18:51 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-2.6.31] virtio_blk: revert QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT addition
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> writes:
> It seems like the addition of QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT caueses major performance
> regressions for Fedora users:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509383
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505695
>
> while I can't reproduce those extreme regressions myself I think the flag
> is wrong.
>
> Rationale:
>
> QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT expands to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT which casus the queue
> unplugged immediately. This is not a good behaviour for at least
> qemu and kvm where we do have significant overhead for every
> I/O operations. Even with all the latested speeups (native AIO,
> MSI support, zero copy) we can only get native speed for up to 128kb
> I/O requests we already are down to 66% of native performance for 4kb
> requests even on my laptop running the Intel X25-M SSD for which the
> QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT was designed.
> If we ever get virtio-blk overhead low enough that this flag makes
> sense it should only be set based on a feature flag set by the host.
I agree with that rationale.
Acked-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists