From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55508) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8P01-0007FQ-P4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:24:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8Ozr-0007lP-Fx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:24:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]:64316) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X8Ozr-0007lL-8z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:23:55 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so1846387wiv.5 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 00:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <53CA1D06.9090601@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:23:50 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <53C9362C.8040507@windriver.com> <53C93C34.7030403@redhat.com> <53C949BA.9040204@windriver.com> <53C97FEB.9060208@redhat.com> <53C9A440.7020306@windriver.com> <53CA06ED.1090102@redhat.com> <53CA0FC4.8080802@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <53CA0FC4.8080802@windriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] is there a limit on the number of in-flight I/O operations? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Chris Friesen , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt_Canet?= Il 19/07/2014 08:27, Chris Friesen ha scritto: > Does it track in-flight operations though? Or just how many operations > can be requested in a given amount of time? It should track in flight operations. However, I'm not sure it supports the iops=0 case properly, since I do not see anything in tracked_request_end that ceases the accounting of the current operation. Benoit, can you answer? Paolo > If it tracks how many operations can be requested, then if the "iops" > parameter is larger than what the server can maintain then the number of > in-flight operations could still grow indefinitely. > > I suppose I'll have to check the code. :)