On Mar 7, 2012 4:33 AM, "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > > >>> On 06.03.12 at 18:20, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <kon...@darnok.org> wrote: > > -> the usage of XenbusStateInitWait? Why do we introduce that? Looks > > like a fix to something. > > No, this is required to get the negotiation working (the frontend must > not try to read the new nodes until it can be certain that the backend > populated them). However, as already pointed out in an earlier reply > to Santosh, the way this is done here doesn't appear to allow for the > backend to already be in InitWait state when the frontend gets > invoked.
OK. > > > -> XENBUS_MAX_RING_PAGES - why 2? Why not 4? What is the optimal > > default size for SSD usage? 16? > > What do SSDs have to do with a XenBus definition? Imo it's wrong (and > unnecessary) to introduce a limit at the XenBus level at all - each driver > can do this for itself. The patch should mention what the benefit of multi ring is. > > As to the limit for SSDs in the block interface - I don't think the number > of possibly simultaneous requests has anything to do with this. Instead, > I'd expect the request number/size/segments extension that NetBSD > apparently implements to possibly have an effect. .. which sounds to me like increasing the bandwidth of the protocol. Should be mentioned somewhere in the git description. > > Jan > >
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
