From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37914 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Oghl8-0005JI-BQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:28:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oghl7-000359-AO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:28:06 -0400 Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.216.45]:46539) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oghl7-000350-6y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:28:05 -0400 Received: by qwf6 with SMTP id 6so1154850qwf.4 for ; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:28:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4C59A31F.3020207@codemonkey.ws> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 12:27:59 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Anyone seeing huge slowdown launching qemu with Linux 2.6.35? References: <4C5847CD.9080107@codemonkey.ws> <4C5848C7.3090806@redhat.com> <4C584982.5000108@codemonkey.ws> <4C584B66.5070404@redhat.com> <4C5854F1.3000905@codemonkey.ws> <4C5858B2.9090801@redhat.com> <4C585F5B.5070502@codemonkey.ws> <4C58635B.7020407@redhat.com> <20100803191346.GA28523@amd.home.annexia.org> <4C586C6E.9030002@redhat.com> <20100803200057.GB28523@amd.home.annexia.org> <4C5880BC.2080802@codemonkey.ws> <4C588685.8070509@redhat.com> <4C588B7D.5040902@codemonkey.ws> <4C591D87.5020809@redhat.com> <4C5962DA.4090108@codemonkey.ws> <4C5998EB.2050804@redhat.com> <4C59996A.9010402@codemonkey.ws> <58DD5B14-F1A9-408C-982A-A29E0A7FACF2@suse.de> <4C599A27.9000602@codemonkey.ws> <4C599CE1.30501@redhat.com> <4C59A108.3090807@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4C59A108.3090807@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Gleb Natapov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Richard W.M. Jones" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini On 08/04/2010 12:19 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/04/2010 08:01 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> That's another story and I totally agree here, but not reusing >> /dev/sd* is not intrinsic in the design of virtio-blk (and one thing >> that Windows gets right; everything is SCSI, period). >> > > I don't really get why everything must be SCSI. Everything must > support read, write, a few other commands, and a large set of optional > commands. But why map them all to SCSI? What's the magic? Because that's what real hardware with only a few rare exceptions. Regards, Anthony Liguori