| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/3] virtio infrastructure: examp
|
To: |
carsteno@xxxxxxxxxx |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH RFC 3/3] virtio infrastructure: example block driver |
|
From: |
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Mon, 4 Jun 2007 15:43:23 +0200 |
|
Cc: |
Jimi Xenidis <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen Mailing List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "jmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kvm-devel <kvm-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mschwid2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christian Borntraeger <cborntra@xxxxxxxxxx>, Suzanne McIntosh <skranjac@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:46:59 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<4664164A.40604@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<1180613947.11133.58.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1180614044.11133.61.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1180614091.11133.63.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <465EC637.7020504@xxxxxxxxxx> <1180654765.10999.6.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <465FC65C.6020905@xxxxxxxxxx> <20070601131315.GW32105@xxxxxxxxx> <4664164A.40604@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
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
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home