[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120102161518.GA28940@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:15:18 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6][RFC] virtio-blk: Change I/O path from request to BIO
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 05:12:00PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 05:45 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >By the way, drivers for solid-state devices can set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
> >to hint that seek time optimizations may be sub-optimal. NBD and
> >other virtual/pseudo device drivers set this flag. Should virtio-blk
> >set it and how does it affect performance?
>
> By itself is not a good idea in general.
>
> When QEMU uses O_DIRECT, the guest should not use QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
> unless it is active for the host disk as well. (In doubt, as is the
> case for remote hosts accessed over NFS, I would also avoid NONROT
> and allow more coalescing).
Do we have any benchmark numbers where QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT makes a
difference? I tried a few times, and the only constant measureable
thing was that it regressed performance when used for rotating devices
in a few benchmarks.
--
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