On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 17:02 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 01/12/2015 00:20, Ming Lin wrote: > > qemu-nvme: 148MB/s > > vhost-nvme + google-ext: 230MB/s > > qemu-nvme + google-ext + eventfd: 294MB/s > > virtio-scsi: 296MB/s > > virtio-blk: 344MB/s > > > > "vhost-nvme + google-ext" didn't get good enough performance. > > I'd expect it to be on par of qemu-nvme with ioeventfd but the question > is: why should it be better? For vhost-net, the answer is that more > zerocopy can be done if you put the data path in the kernel. > > But qemu-nvme is already using io_submit for the data path, perhaps > there's not much to gain from vhost-nvme... What do you think about virtio-nvme+vhost-nvme? I also have patch for vritio-nvme: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mlin/linux.git/log/?h=nvme-split/virtio Just need to change vhost-nvme to work with it. > > Paolo > > > Still tuning. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
