From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: virtio-blk performance regression and qemu-kvm
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:25:59 +1030
Message-ID: <87sjifd2sw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <20120210143639.GA17883@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Dongsu Park <dongsu.park@profitbricks.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:58045 "EHLO ozlabs.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756007Ab2BLX7l (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:59:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20120210143639.GA17883@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:36:39 +0100, Dongsu Park <dongsu.park@profitbricks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Recently I observed performance regression regarding virtio-blk,
> especially different IO bandwidths between qemu-kvm 0.14.1 and 1.0.
> So I want to share the benchmark results, and ask you what the reason
> would be.

Interesting.  There are two obvious possibilities here.  One is that
qemu has regressed, the other is that virtio_blk has regressed; the new
qemu may negotiate new features.  Please do the following in the guest
with old and new qemus:

cat /sys/class/block/vdb/device/features

(eg, here that gives: 0010101101100000000000000000100e0).

Thanks,
Rusty.