[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJSP0QWgmXns89se+xdGgM6i1_hsfVWPQ8caHua9d-dDA4CTDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:58:21 +0100
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
To: Asias He <asias@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add vhost-blk support
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Asias He <asias@...hat.com> wrote:
> This patchset adds vhost-blk support. vhost-blk is a in kernel virito-blk
> device accelerator. Compared to userspace virtio-blk implementation, vhost-blk
> gives about 5% to 15% performance improvement.
Why is it 5-15% faster? vhost-blk and the userspace virtio-blk you
benchmarked should be doing basically the same thing:
1. An eventfd file descriptor is signalled when the vring has new
requests available from the guest.
2. A thread wakes up and processes the virtqueue.
3. Linux AIO is used to issue host I/O.
4. An interrupt is injected into the guest.
Does the vhost-blk implementation do anything fundamentally different
from userspace? Where is the overhead that userspace virtio-blk has?
I'm asking because it would be beneficial to fix the overhead
(especially it that could speed up all userspace applications) instead
of adding a special-purpose kernel module to work around the overhead.
Stefan
--
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