From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: sync guest calls made async on host - SQLite performance Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:04:40 +0300 Message-ID: <4ABCDC08.4060806@redhat.com> References: <4ABA45BE.1080008@gmail.com> <4ABB5BAD.3000007@redhat.com> <4ABB6E07.60909@redhat.com> <4ABC6FC5.6080007@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Tippett Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57675 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752793AbZIYPEm (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:04:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/25/2009 02:33 PM, Matthew Tippett wrote: > First up, Phoronix hasn't tuned. It's observing the delivered state > by an OS vendor. I started with what I believe to be the starting > point - KVM. > > So the position of the KVM now is that it is either QEMU's > configuration or Ubuntu's configuration. No further guidance or > suggestions? Note that the prevailing response here does not see the > 10 fold sqlite performance with guest vs host as a problem. > > I'll move this discussion to qemu then, is there any kvm developers > who are willing to maintain this position in a discussion with QEMU? > I suggest you start at the other end - verify with Ubuntu that their configuration is safe. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.