From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MeCyU-00031u-Ic for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:07:02 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MeCyP-0002uz-Ga for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:07:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=38661 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MeCyP-0002ui-41 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:06:57 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:46449) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MeCyO-0004rE-8g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:06:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:06:53 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] native Linux AIO support revisited Message-ID: <20090820190653.GC6066@shareable.org> References: <20090820145803.GA23578@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090820145803.GA23578@lst.de> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Christoph Hellwig wrote: > The IO code performs slightly better than the thread pool on most > workloads I've thrown at it, and uses a lot less CPU time for it: That's interesting. I was under the impression that over on linux-aio@kvack.org and on here, some measurements had already been done showing that threaded AIO wasn't much worse than Linux AIO or perhaps better, and therefore might as well be used. Guess I misunderstood something. -- Jamie