On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 04:32:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 05/07/2012 15:53, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto: > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 12:22:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> Il 05/07/2012 03:52, Nicholas A. Bellinger ha scritto: > >>> > >>> fio randrw workload | virtio-scsi-raw | virtio-scsi+tcm_vhost | > >>> bare-metal raw block > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> 25 Write / 75 Read | ~15K | ~45K | > >>> ~70K > >>> 75 Write / 25 Read | ~20K | ~55K | > >>> ~60K > >> > >> This is impressive, but I think it's still not enough to justify the > >> inclusion of tcm_vhost. In my opinion, vhost-blk/vhost-scsi are mostly > >> worthwhile as drivers for improvements to QEMU performance. We want to > >> add more fast paths to QEMU that let us move SCSI and virtio processing > >> to separate threads, we have proof of concepts that this can be done, > >> and we can use vhost-blk/vhost-scsi to find bottlenecks more effectively. > > > > A general rant below: > > > > OTOH if it works, and adds value, we really should consider including code. > > To me, it does not make sense to reject code just because in theory > > someone could write even better code. > > It's not about writing better code. It's about having two completely > separate SCSI/block layers with completely different feature sets.
You mean qemu one versus kernel one? Both exist anyway :) > > Code walks. Time to marker matters too. > > Yes I realize more options increases support. But downstreams can make > > their own decisions on whether to support some configurations: > > add a configure option to disable it and that's enough. > > > >> In fact, virtio-scsi-qemu and virtio-scsi-vhost are effectively two > >> completely different devices that happen to speak the same SCSI > >> transport. Not only virtio-scsi-vhost must be configured outside QEMU > > > > configuration outside QEMU is OK I think - real users use > > management anyway. But maybe we can have helper scripts > > like we have for tun? > > We could add hooks for vhost-scsi in the SCSI devices and let them > configure themselves. I'm not sure it is a good idea. This is exactly what virtio-net does. > >> and doesn't support -device; > > > > This needs to be fixed I think. > > To be clear, it supports -device for the virtio-scsi HBA itself; it > doesn't support using -drive/-device to set up the disks hanging off it. Fixable, isn't it? > >> it (obviously) presents different > >> inquiry/vpd/mode data than virtio-scsi-qemu, > > > > Why is this obvious and can't be fixed? Userspace virtio-scsi > > is pretty flexible - can't it supply matching inquiry/vpd/mode data > > so that switching is transparent to the guest? > > It cannot support anyway the whole feature set unless you want to port > thousands of lines from the kernel to QEMU (well, perhaps we'll get > there but it's far. And dually, the in-kernel target of course does not > support qcow2 and friends though perhaps you could imagine some hack > based on NBD. > > Paolo Exactly. Kernel also gains functionality all the time. -- MST -- 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
