[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikkgsZFLq-X0L2mzKucJetGyOmJNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:33:16 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alexander Graf <agraf@...e.de>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Prasad Joshi <prasadjoshi124@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Asias He <asias.hejun@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native Linux KVM tool v2
Hi Ingo,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> - executing AIO in the vcpu thread eats up precious vcpu execution
> time: combined QCOW2 throughput would be limited by a single
> core's performance, and any time spent on QCOW2 processing would
> not be spent running the guest CPU. (In such a model we certainly
> couldnt do more intelligent, CPU-intense storage solutions like on
> the fly compress/decompress of QCOW2 data.)
Most image formats have optional on-the-fly compression/decompression
so we'd need to keep the current I/O thread scheme anyway.
> I'd only consider KAIO it if it provides some *real* measurable
> performance advantage of at least 10% in some important usecase.
> A few percent probably wouldnt be worth it.
I've only been following AIO kernel development from the sidelines but
I really haven't seen any reports of significant gains over
read()/write() from a thread pool. Are there any such reports?
Pekka
--
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