From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54447)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1VMy0Q-0007Rb-QB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:32:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1VMy0K-0001is-Rl
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:32:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:5779)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1VMy0K-0001hz-Kf
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:32:04 -0400
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8KAW41N018659
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 06:32:04 -0400
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:32:02 +0200
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20130920103202.GA14159@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1378106712-29856-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com>
	<523B134C.8060902@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <523B134C.8060902@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 0/8] Add metadata overlap checks
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 05:07:56PM +0200, Max Reitz wrote:
> As far as I understand, the I/O speed (the duration of an I/O
> operation) should be pretty much the same for all scenarios,
> however, the latency is the value in question (since the overlap
> checks should affect the latency only).

The other value to look at is the host CPU consumption per I/O.  In
other words, the CPU overhead added by performing the extra checks:

  efficiency = avg throughput / avg cpu utilization

Once CPU consumption reaches 100% the workload is CPU-bound and we have
a bottleneck.

Hopefully the efficiency doesn't change noticably either, then we know
there is no big impact from the extra checks.

Stefan