Re: [RFC] vhost-blk implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/24/2010 10:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:03:14PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
I also think it should be done at the bio layer.  File I/O is going to
be slower, if we do vhost-blk we should concentrate on maximum
performance.  The block layer also exposes more functionality we can use
(asynchronous barriers for example).
The block layer is more flexible, but that limits you to only stack
directly ontop of a block device, which is extremly inflexible.

We still have a virtio implementation in userspace for file-based images.

In any case, the file APIs are not asynchronous so we'll need a thread pool. That will probably minimize the difference in performance between the userspace and kernel implementations.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux