From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Mailand Subject: Re: virtio-blk performance regression and qemu-kvm Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:12:58 +0100 Message-ID: <4F4E245A.9050509@tuxadero.com> References: <20120210143639.GA17883@gmail.com> <20120221155725.GA950@gmail.com> <20120222164840.GA8517@gmail.com> <4F4D035A.60107@tuxadero.com> <4F4D0BAF.2020508@tuxadero.com> Reply-To: martin@tuxadero.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dongsu Park , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Hajnoczi Return-path: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:55136 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932529Ab2B2NNF (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Stefan, you are right, the performance for the commits 0b9b128530b and 4fefc55ab04d are both good. What is the best approach to stay in the qemu-kvm.git history? -martin On 29.02.2012 09:38, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > I suggest testing both of the qemu-kvm.git merge commits, 0b9b128530b > and 4fefc55ab04d. My guess is you will find they perform the same, > i.e. the qemu.git commits which were merged did not affect performance > in qemu-kvm.git. That would be evidence that git-bisect has not > located the real culprit. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:47861) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2jL9-0003tG-Hp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:13:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2jL4-0003jn-6W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:13:07 -0500 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:55133) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S2jL3-0003jU-TR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:13:02 -0500 Message-ID: <4F4E245A.9050509@tuxadero.com> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:12:58 +0100 From: Martin Mailand MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20120210143639.GA17883@gmail.com> <20120221155725.GA950@gmail.com> <20120222164840.GA8517@gmail.com> <4F4D035A.60107@tuxadero.com> <4F4D0BAF.2020508@tuxadero.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] virtio-blk performance regression and qemu-kvm Reply-To: martin@tuxadero.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Dongsu Park , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi Stefan, you are right, the performance for the commits 0b9b128530b and 4fefc55ab04d are both good. What is the best approach to stay in the qemu-kvm.git history? -martin On 29.02.2012 09:38, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > I suggest testing both of the qemu-kvm.git merge commits, 0b9b128530b > and 4fefc55ab04d. My guess is you will find they perform the same, > i.e. the qemu.git commits which were merged did not affect performance > in qemu-kvm.git. That would be evidence that git-bisect has not > located the real culprit.