[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340019575.22848.2.camel@lappy>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:39:35 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: dlaor@...hat.com
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Asias He <asias@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] virtio-blk: Add bio-based IO path for virtio-blk
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:14 +0300, Dor Laor wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 01:05 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:03:23 +0800, Asias He<asias@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/18/2012 03:46 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:10 +0800, Asias He<asias@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>>> This patch introduces bio-based IO path for virtio-blk.
> >>>
> >>> Why make it optional?
> >>
> >> request-based IO path is useful for users who do not want to bypass the
> >> IO scheduler in guest kernel, e.g. users using spinning disk. For users
> >> using fast disk device, e.g. SSD device, they can use bio-based IO path.
> >
> > Users using a spinning disk still get IO scheduling in the host though.
> > What benefit is there in doing it in the guest as well?
>
> The io scheduler waits for requests to merge and thus batch IOs
> together. It's not important w.r.t spinning disks since the host can do
> it but it causes much less vmexits which is the key issue for VMs.
Is the amount of exits caused by virtio-blk significant at all with
EVENT_IDX?
--
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