From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NwcwM-0007Iy-47
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:01:14 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59975 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NwcwJ-0007Iq-ON
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:01:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <chrisw@redhat.com>) id 1NwcwH-0006KV-M0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:01:11 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17253)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <chrisw@redhat.com>) id 1NwcwH-0006KL-Bi
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:01:09 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:01:07 -0700
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100330150107.GI11934@x200.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [Qemu-devel] KVM call minutes for Mar 30
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

vhost-blk
- started w/ vhost-net, nice and modular
- qemu merging requests, so outperforming (throughput) for sequential write
- random read/write and sequential reads are comparable or better
- can't do e.g. qcow2
- spreading work across all cpu workqueues
- are there cases where we expect vhost-blk is needed?
  - not driven by poor perf benchmarks, more driven from interest/curiosity
  - hch's numbers (esp. large request) are solid
  - low hanging fruit...no interrupt mitigation, addr lookup on all request
  - get some performance numbers and profiles to see what we can do to
    improve existing virtio before moving to vhost

qemu optimizations (re: above addr lookup)
- no long lived ptr to guest memory
- ram memory patch allowed for stable mapping
  - objection was memory hotplug/remove
    - how much do we want to gate qemu progress on memory hotplug?
- http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/RamAPI

ide emulation
- qemu virtio-blk vs. other hv ide emulation...ide was better
  - this was some time ago
  - older qemu, even qemu ide emulation was better than virtio-blk in
    some cases
- ide still bounce buffering, and has some fundamental limitations
  (some of those may be fixable w/ ahci)
- anyone looked at this recently?