Re: [PATCH] virtio-blk: use VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE and VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE in virtio1

2015-09-07 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 22/08/2015 00:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE is important in order to achieve good performance > (up to 2x, though more realistically +30-40%) in latency-bound workloads. > However, it was removed by mistake together with VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH. > > It will be restored in the

Re: [PATCH] virtio-blk: use VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE and VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE in virtio1

2015-09-07 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 22/08/2015 00:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE is important in order to achieve good performance > (up to 2x, though more realistically +30-40%) in latency-bound workloads. > However, it was removed by mistake together with VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH. > > It will be restored in the

[PATCH] virtio-blk: use VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE and VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE in virtio1

2015-08-21 Thread Paolo Bonzini
VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE is important in order to achieve good performance (up to 2x, though more realistically +30-40%) in latency-bound workloads. However, it was removed by mistake together with VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH. It will be restored in the next revision of the virtio 1.0 standard, so do the

[PATCH] virtio-blk: use VIRTIO_BLK_F_WCE and VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE in virtio1

2015-08-21 Thread Paolo Bonzini
VIRTIO_BLK_F_CONFIG_WCE is important in order to achieve good performance (up to 2x, though more realistically +30-40%) in latency-bound workloads. However, it was removed by mistake together with VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH. It will be restored in the next revision of the virtio 1.0 standard, so do the