On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 09:18:01AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Any progress on these patches?
Khoa ran ffsb benchmarks on his rig and we didn't see any benefit. I
have not started investigating yet, been working on other things.
It will be necessary to compare against the old patches which
Any progress on these patches?
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
>>> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
>> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
>> times and increases cont
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:48:41AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index 4ce953f..a8672ec 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -433,6 +433,8 @@ void blk_run_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> spin_lock_irqsave(q->que
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
> times and increases contention for the lock.
As you point out the problem with dropping
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
> times and increases contention for the lock.
>
> This patch modifies virtqueue_kick() to
On 06/29/2010 10:08 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> Is it incorrect to have the following pattern?
> spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock);
> spin_unlock(q->queue_lock);
> spin_lock(q->queue_lock);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock);
>
Perfectly legitimate. spin_lock_irqsave() is equivalent to
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
>> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
>> times and increases content
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:24:02PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
> times and increases contention for the lock.
>
> This patch modifies virtqueue_kick() to
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:32:20PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:31:44PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:43:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:39:21PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jun
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 04:31:44PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:43:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:39:21PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:00:30 pm Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:1
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:43:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:39:21PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:00:30 pm Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Anthony Liguori
> > > wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't it be possible to
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:39:21PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:00:30 pm Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Anthony Liguori
> > wrote:
> > > Shouldn't it be possible to just drop the lock before invoking
> > > virtqueue_kick() and reacquire it aft
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:00:30 pm Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Anthony Liguori
>> wrote:
>> > Shouldn't it be possible to just drop the lock before invoking
>> > virtqueue_kick() and reacquire it afterwards? Th
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 03:00:30 pm Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Anthony Liguori
> wrote:
> > Shouldn't it be possible to just drop the lock before invoking
> > virtqueue_kick() and reacquire it afterwards? There's nothing in that
> > virtqueue_kick() path that the lock
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Shouldn't it be possible to just drop the lock before invoking
> virtqueue_kick() and reacquire it afterwards? There's nothing in that
> virtqueue_kick() path that the lock is protecting AFAICT.
No, that would lead to a race condition be
On 06/23/2010 04:24 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
> Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
> times and increases contention for the lock.
>
> This patch modifies virtqueue_kick() to optionally release
The virtio block device holds a lock during I/O request processing.
Kicking the virtqueue while the lock is held results in long lock hold
times and increases contention for the lock.
This patch modifies virtqueue_kick() to optionally release a lock while
notifying the host. Virtio block is modif
19 matches
Mail list logo
