WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Blktap: Userspace file-based image support. (RFC

To: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Blktap: Userspace file-based image support. (RFC)
From: "Andrew Warfield" <andrew.warfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:24:28 -0700
Cc: Xen Developers <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Julian Chesterfield <julian.chesterfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:24:52 -0700
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=uLDtddjTNXyTu8DBdUW+t/JESwi4up4BQyivWv84ZahAYu/vkgBThFYGonghnbzoB6QakKsuIDumwWKCiKXWvqiOJ2nt3b1aizOMGVAvagENozFSnFvpgt2DsHVVxXwCxhtfvUvPAwUwmOVwbJ0z1YXEFliLnIQtjva1KVYXYaE=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1151552130.14360.10.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <eacc82a40606190919x4bd4ef22m9d8431e650e85a67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1151552130.14360.10.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        I like the idea of block servers in userspace, but I'm curious.  When I
wrote the simple share block server I couldn't see an obvious
justification for multiple outstanding requests (with AIO/threads and
all that entails), so I went for the trivial single request approach.
It seems to me that the backend doesn't have much information the front
end doesn't have.

Hi Rusty,

  not sure I see what you are asking.  A very early version of the
code just did  synchronous dispatch (one blocking request at a time)
and was, as you might expect, very slow.  You clearly want to keep the
block request queues as full as possible to amortize seeks... AIO just
lets me issue batches of requests at once, and so minimizes context
switching through userland -- which was something I was worried about
causing overhead on x86_64.  I don't really think it adds that much
complexity.

  The process-per-disk thing is optional in the current code, you
could just as easily build a single-threaded user backend.  The
current model hopefully buys you a bit of resiliency against crashes
and maps per-disk request streams in a fairly clean way down onto the
block sheduler.

Am I missing your point?

a.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>