Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/3] virtio infrastructure: example block driver

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

 



Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01 2007, Carsten Otte wrote:
With regard to compute power needed, almost none. The penalty is latency, not overhead: A small request may sit on the request queue to wait for other work to arrive until the queue gets unplugged. This penality is compensated by the benefit of a good chance that more requests will be merged during this time period. If we have this method both in host and guest, we have twice the penalty with no added benefit.

I don't buy that argument. We can easily expose the unplug delay, so you
can kill it at what ever level you want. Or you could just do it in the
driver right now, but that is a bit hackish.
That would be preferable if the device driver can chose the unplug delay, or even better it could be (guest)sysfs tuneable.

so long,
Carsten
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux