From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Martin Mailand <martin@tuxadero.com>
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> <CAJSP0QUNN1Gj0RwYrb8QyUVrAEeZdrUrbbRR7LFAdrr332w_rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120221155725.GA950@gmail.com> <CAJSP0QVjXX2NbJ1mOQtyJ7akycem3p4u6t4y3H5Nv1Dq-CQ9AQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120222164840.GA8517@gmail.com> <CAJSP0QUKiKaKuQL46w3cycxL=cYgqUD=cc+MZCL=arKbMUZx0g@mail.gmail.com> <4F4D035A.60107@tuxadero.com> <CAJSP0QXRsMFFa2KPvZ5rY_GUPbssh8Hyp2gitnTmcFxQvSz+5g@mail.gmail.com> <4F4D0BAF.2020508@tuxadero.com> <CAJSP0QVj7AzSORw-PCtvQBwHvzkkOq28StXbV74x2u16H=1WXw@mail.gmail.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 <dongsu.park@profitbricks.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
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 <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:13:05 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAJSP0QVj7AzSORw-PCtvQBwHvzkkOq28StXbV74x2u16H=1WXw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.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.