> Bandan Das <bsd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 03/22/2016 09:00:50 PM: > > "Michael Rapoport" <RAPOPORT@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Well, Elvis is a _theoretical_ example that showed that I/O scheduling in > > the vhost improves performance. > > I'm not saying we should take Evlis and try to squeeze it into the vhost, > > I just want to say that we cannot switch vhost to use workqueues if it > > causes performance degradation. > > > > My opinion is that we need to give it some more thought, much more > > performance evaluation, so that we can find the best model. > > Exactly, I think we are outright discarding using workqueues even > without investigating it in detail even though it would be a cleaner > implementation using a common framework and thereby more chances of > an acceptable solution for upstream. I'm not suggesting to discard using workqueues. All I'm saying that among several options for vhost threading model we should find the one with best "performance/complexity" ratio :) > Anyway, if we don't want to go the workqueues way for vhost, cgroups > support for workqueues is still something worth having on its own. No objection to that. > >> > opportunity for optimization, at least for some workloads... > >> > That said, I believe that switching vhost to use workqueues is not > > that > >> > good idea after all. > >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
