From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Anyone seeing huge slowdown launching qemu with Linux 2.6.35? Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:16:47 -0500 Message-ID: <4C59AE8F.80205@codemonkey.ws> References: <4C590046.2020705@redhat.com> <4C591D48.9080301@redhat.com> <4C592218.3000901@redhat.com> <4C596549.1070109@codemonkey.ws> <20100804130709.GL10499@redhat.com> <4C5967D8.7080707@codemonkey.ws> <20100804133401.GP10499@redhat.com> <4C5970AC.6060105@codemonkey.ws> <4C5995B4.90505@redhat.com> <4C5996F4.6010205@redhat.com> <20100804174601.GH28523@amd.home.annexia.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Richard W.M.Jones" , Avi Kivity , Gleb Natapov , Gerd Hoffmann , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:39583 "EHLO mail-qy0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756987Ab0HDSQy (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:16:54 -0400 Received: by qyk7 with SMTP id 7so1994070qyk.19 for ; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:16:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/04/2010 01:13 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 04.08.2010, at 19:46, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 07:36:04PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> This is basically my suggestion to libguestfs: instead of generating >>> an initrd, generate a bootable cdrom, and boot from that. The >>> result is faster and has a smaller memory footprint. Everyone wins. >>> >> We had some discussion of this upstream& decided to do this. It >> should save the time it takes for the guest kernel to unpack the >> initrd, so maybe another second off boot time, which could bring us >> ever closer to the "golden" 5 second boot target. >> >> It's not trivial mind you, and won't happen straightaway. Part of it >> is that it requires reworking the appliance builder (a matter of just >> coding really). The less trivial part is that we have to 'hide' the >> CD device throughout the publically available interfaces. Then of >> course, a lot of testing. >> > Why not go with 9p? That would save off even more time, as you don't have to generate an iso. You could just copy all the relevant executables into tmpfs and boot from there using your kernel and a very small (pre-built) initrd. > You can't boot from 9p. Regards, Anthony Liguori > Alex > >