On 07/17/2012 12:21 PM, Asias He wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3
On 07/17/2012 09:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Asias He wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 07:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
>
>
> So, vhost-blk
On 07/17/2012 07:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is
On 07/17/2012 07:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 07:11 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at
On 07/17/2012 09:02 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone
On 07/17/2012 12:21 PM, Asias He wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin
> >> wrote:
> Knowing the answer to that is
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
this approach is good or not.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
> >> this approach is good or not.
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >
> > Why is it?
>
> Because there might
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
>> this approach is good or not.
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Why is it?
Because there might be a fix to kvmtool which closes the gap. It
would be embarassing if vhost-blk
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:42:13PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
> >> > On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
>>> > On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
>> > On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
>> >>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Asias He wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 07:58 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> Does the vhost-blk implementation do anything fundamentally different
>> from userspace? Where is the overhead that userspace virtio-blk has?
>
>
>
> Currently, no. But we could play with bio
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
> > On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >> Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He wrote:
> On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
>>>
>>> So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
>>
>>
>> Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/07/2012 12:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >> Ok, that would make more sense. One difference between vhost-blk and
> >> vhost-net is that for vhost-blk there are also management actions that
> >> would trigger the switch,
Il 17/07/2012 12:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> Ok, that would make more sense. One difference between vhost-blk and
>> vhost-net is that for vhost-blk there are also management actions that
>> would trigger the switch, for example a live snapshot.
>> So a prerequisite for vhost-blk would
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:14:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/07/2012 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >> So it begs the question, is it going to be used in production, or just a
> >> useful reference tool?
> >
> > Sticking to raw already makes virtio-blk faster, doesn't it?
> >
Il 17/07/2012 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
>> So it begs the question, is it going to be used in production, or just a
>> useful reference tool?
>
> Sticking to raw already makes virtio-blk faster, doesn't it?
> In that vhost-blk looks to me like just another optimization option.
>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:32:45AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/07/2012 11:21, Asias He ha scritto:
> >> It depends. Like vhost-scsi, vhost-blk has the problem of a crippled
> >> feature set: no support for block device formats, non-raw protocols,
> >> etc. This makes it different from
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:52:10AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
> > So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
>
> Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
> (i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's
Il 17/07/2012 11:21, Asias He ha scritto:
>> It depends. Like vhost-scsi, vhost-blk has the problem of a crippled
>> feature set: no support for block device formats, non-raw protocols,
>> etc. This makes it different from vhost-net.
>
> Data-plane qemu also has this cripppled feature set
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really 2 syscalls per
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
> So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really 2 syscalls per request.
Also, is there anything we can improve?
On 07/16/2012 07:58 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Asias He 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
On 07/16/2012 07:58 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Asias He as...@redhat.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%
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really 2 syscalls per request.
Also, is there anything we can improve?
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really 2 syscalls per
Il 17/07/2012 11:21, Asias He ha scritto:
It depends. Like vhost-scsi, vhost-blk has the problem of a crippled
feature set: no support for block device formats, non-raw protocols,
etc. This makes it different from vhost-net.
Data-plane qemu also has this cripppled feature set problem, no?
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:52:10AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
(i.e. each exit processes 3 requests), it's really
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:32:45AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 11:21, Asias He ha scritto:
It depends. Like vhost-scsi, vhost-blk has the problem of a crippled
feature set: no support for block device formats, non-raw protocols,
etc. This makes it different from vhost-net.
Il 17/07/2012 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
So it begs the question, is it going to be used in production, or just a
useful reference tool?
Sticking to raw already makes virtio-blk faster, doesn't it?
In that vhost-blk looks to me like just another optimization option.
Ideally I
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:14:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 11:45, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
So it begs the question, is it going to be used in production, or just a
useful reference tool?
Sticking to raw already makes virtio-blk faster, doesn't it?
In that
Il 17/07/2012 12:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
Ok, that would make more sense. One difference between vhost-blk and
vhost-net is that for vhost-blk there are also management actions that
would trigger the switch, for example a live snapshot.
So a prerequisite for vhost-blk would be that
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:56:31PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 12:49, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
Ok, that would make more sense. One difference between vhost-blk and
vhost-net is that for vhost-blk there are also management actions that
would trigger the switch, for
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
Are they really 6? If I/O is coalesced by a factor of 3, for example
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha scritto:
So, vhost-blk at least saves ~6 syscalls for us in each request.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/16/2012 07:58 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
Does the vhost-blk implementation do anything fundamentally different
from userspace? Where is the overhead that userspace virtio-blk has?
Currently, no. But we could play with
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012 04:52 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 10:29, Asias He ha
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:42:13PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:11:15PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Asias He as...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/17/2012
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
this approach is good or not.
Stefan
Why is it?
Because there might be a fix to kvmtool which closes the gap. It
would be embarassing if
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
this approach is good or not.
Stefan
Why is it?
Because there might be
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is important before anyone can say whether
this approach is good or not.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 03:02:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 17/07/2012 14:48, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03:39PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com
wrote:
Knowing the answer to that is
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Asias He 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
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Asias He as...@redhat.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?
Hello Jeff,
On 07/13/2012 12:06 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Asias He writes:
Hi folks,
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.
Asias He
Asias He writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> 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.
>
> Asias He (5):
> aio: Export symbols and struct
Hi folks,
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.
Asias He (5):
aio: Export symbols and struct kiocb_batch for in kernel aio usage
Hello Jeff,
On 07/13/2012 12:06 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Asias He as...@redhat.com writes:
Hi folks,
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
Hi folks,
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.
Asias He (5):
aio: Export symbols and struct kiocb_batch for in kernel aio usage
Asias He as...@redhat.com writes:
Hi folks,
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.
Asias He (5):
aio: Export symbols and
56 matches
Mail list logo
