On Mon, Jun 04 2007, Carsten Otte wrote: > 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. Right. We probably should make it sysfs configurable in any case, right now it's a (somewhat) policy decision in the kernel with the delay and unplug depth. -- Jens Axboe _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
