On 19/05/2016 22:12, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On 05/18/2016 07:12 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> >> >> On 18/05/2016 18:26, Emmanuel Lacour wrote: >>> Thanks, it's a bad news for us :( >>> >>> I will try to play with cgroups io throttling to limit by iops or bytes >>> read, but it'll be a hard limit rather than a priority :( >> >> That probably won't work either, but you can use io throttling on the >> host too. >> >>> Do you think there could be back some io priority throttling in not so >>> far future kernels? >> >> I wouldn't oppose a patch to add back the non-mq path, but as far as I >> know nobody is working on it. It's not hard and I can help if you need >> guidance. >> >> Adding I/O scheduler support to blk-mq has been promised for at least a >> year now, but I'm not aware of which kernel release might have the work. >> It's not even been submitted to LKML, so I guess it's quite far away. > > What actually happened to the virtio-blk multiqueue support in QEMU? The guy who submitted the patch for the "fake" virtio-blk multiqueue (backed by a single iothread) disappeared. "Real" virtio-blk multiqueue is at least 80 patches away (70 of those have been written :)). However, multiqueue is independent from Emmanuel's problem. Thanks, Paolo -- 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
