From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
To: Abel Gordon <ABELG@il.ibm.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org>, Asias He <asias@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Block I/O optimizations
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:54:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130301105454.GB575@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OF89B4E81E.00226F20-ONC2257B20.00574B6E-C2257B20.0064B893@il.ibm.com>
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 08:20:08PM +0200, Abel Gordon wrote:
> Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com> wrote on 28/02/2013 04:43:04 PM:
> > I think extending and tuning the existing mechanisms is the way to go.
> > I don't see obvious advantages other than reducing context switches.
>
> Maybe it is worth checking...
> We did experiments using vhost-net and vhost-blk. We measured and compared
> the traditional model (kernel thread per VM/virtual device) to the
> shared-thread model with fine-grained I/O scheduling (single kernel thread
> used to serve multiple VMs). We noticed improvements up-to 2.5x
> in throughput and almost half the latency when running up-to 14 VMs.
Can you post patches?
Also, I wonder if you have time to do a presentation/discussion session
so we can get the ball rolling and more people exposed to your approach.
There is a weekly QEMU Community Call which we can use as the forum.
The reason I have been skeptical is that prototyping radical changes
often involves rewriting or bypassing code. These "accidental" changes
can impact performance too. We need to understand where to attribute
the performance improvements.
Stefan
next parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-01 10:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <512270C4.3090401@dachary.org>
[not found] ` <CAJSP0QWOzRLi=QPtS8uLR9_c1=M9ptjx+rd8fg2Mnj6tjXAOQA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <OFB9942FE4.54D170F3-ONC2257B1D.002BE3C8-C2257B1D.00306994@il.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20130225125056.GB3202@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <OFDEF91A17.56D72381-ONC2257B1D.0061DD03-C2257B1D.00671633@il.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20130226164530.GF8662@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <OF97530B15.2137222C-ONC2257B1F.004F1393-C2257B1F.0054C2F9@il.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <20130228144304.GC18389@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
[not found] ` <OF89B4E81E.00226F20-ONC2257B20.00574B6E-C2257B20.0064B893@il.ibm.com>
2013-03-01 10:54 ` Stefan Hajnoczi [this message]
2013-03-03 9:35 ` [Qemu-devel] Block I/O optimizations Abel Gordon
2013-03-04 8:45 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2013-03-04 11:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-04-04 8:36 ` Abel Gordon
2013-04-04 13:08 ` Anthony Liguori
2013-04-04 13:41 ` Liu Yuan
2013-03-13 15:21 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2013-03-29 13:33 ` Loic Dachary
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130301105454.GB575@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com \
--to=stefanha@gmail.com \
--cc=ABELG@il.ibm.com \
--cc=aliguori@us.ibm.com \
--cc=asias@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=loic@dachary.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).