[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150304212140.GA18253@l.oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:21:40 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>
Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
Felipe Franciosi <felipe.franciosi@...rix.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"avanzini.arianna@...il.com" <avanzini.arianna@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] xen/blkfront: separate ring information to an new
struct
> > David assertion that better performance and scalbility can be gained
> > with grant table locking and TLB flush avoidance is interesting - as
> > 1). The grant locking is going in Xen 4.6 but not earlier - so when running
> > on older hypervisors this gives an performance benefit.
> >
> > 2). I have not seen any prototype TLB flush avoidance code so not know
> > when that would be available.
> >
> > Perhaps a better choice is to do the removal of the persistence support
> > when the changes in Xen hypervisor are known?
> >
>
> With patch: [PATCH v5 0/2] gnttab: Improve scaleability, I can get
> nearly the same performance as without persistence support.
>
> But I'm not sure about the benchmark described here:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c?id=0a8704a51f386cab7394e38ff1d66eef924d8ab8
Meaning you weren't able to do the same test?
>
> --
> Regards,
> -Bob
--
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