From: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>

It seems like the addition of QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT caueses major performance
regressions for Fedora users:

        https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509383
        https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505695

while I can't reproduce those extreme regressions myself I think the flag
is wrong.

Rationale:

  QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT expands to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT which casus the queue
  unplugged immediately.  This is not a good behaviour for at least
  qemu and kvm where we do have significant overhead for every
  I/O operations.  Even with all the latested speeups (native AIO,
  MSI support, zero copy) we can only get native speed for up to 128kb
  I/O requests we already are down to 66% of native performance for 4kb
  requests even on my laptop running the Intel X25-M SSD for which the
  QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT was designed.
  If we ever get virtio-blk overhead low enough that this flag makes
  sense it should only be set based on a feature flag set by the host.
        
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au>
---
 drivers/block/virtio_blk.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c   2009-09-04 17:33:48.802523987 
-0300
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c        2009-09-04 17:33:56.186522158 
-0300
@@ -314,7 +314,6 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struc
        }
 
        vblk->disk->queue->queuedata = vblk;
-       queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT, vblk->disk->queue);
 
        if (index < 26) {
                sprintf(vblk->disk->disk_name, "vd%c", 'a' + index % 26);
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

Reply via email to