On 13/03/2015 15:46, Jason Baron wrote:
> > The throttling algorithm computes a duration for the next IO, which is used
> > to
> > arm a timer in order to delay the request a bit. As timers are always
> > rounded
> > *UP* to the effective granularity, the timeout being 1ms in epoll_pwait is
>
On 03/13/2015 07:31 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 03/12 11:02, Jason Baron wrote:
>> On 03/09/2015 09:49 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So it sounds like you are comparing original qemu code (which was using
>> ppoll) vs. using epoll with these new syscalls. Curious if you have numbers
>> c
On Thu, 03/12 11:02, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 09:49 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >
> > Benchmark for epoll_pwait1
> > ==
> >
> > By running fio tests inside VM with both original and modified QEMU, we can
> > compare their difference in performance.
> >
> > With a small
On 03/09/2015 09:49 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>
> Benchmark for epoll_pwait1
> ==
>
> By running fio tests inside VM with both original and modified QEMU, we can
> compare their difference in performance.
>
> With a small VM setup [t1], the original QEMU (ppoll based) has an 4k r
Changes from v3:
- Add "size" field in epoll_wait_params. [Jon, Ingo, Seymour]
- Input validation for ncmds in epoll_ctl_batch. [Dan]
- Return -EFAULT if copy_to_user failed in epoll_ctl_batch. [Omar, Michael]
- Change "timeout" in epoll_wait_params to pointer, to get the same
conventi
5 matches
Mail list logo