On 07/03/2012 05:22 PM, Ronen Hod wrote:
On 06/18/2012 02:14 PM, Dor Laor wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:05 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:03:23 +0800, Asias He<as...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 06/18/2012 03:46 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:10 +0800, Asias He<as...@redhat.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.
Does it make sense to use the guest's I/O scheduler at all?
That's the reason we have a noop io scheduler.
- It is not aware of the physical (spinning) disk layout.
- It is not aware of all the host's disk pending requests.
It does have a good side-effect - batching of requests.
Ronen.
Cheers,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
