From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-2.6.31] virtio_blk: revert QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT addition
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:18:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49ab1as91g.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090904204442.GA30941@lst.de> (Christoph Hellwig's message of "Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:44:42 +0200")
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> writes:
> It seems like the addition of QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT caueses major performance
> regressions for Fedora users:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509383
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505695
>
> while I can't reproduce those extreme regressions myself I think the flag
> is wrong.
>
> Rationale:
>
> QUEUE_FLAG_VIRT expands to QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT which casus the queue
> unplugged immediately. This is not a good behaviour for at least
> qemu and kvm where we do have significant overhead for every
> I/O operations. Even with all the latested speeups (native AIO,
> MSI support, zero copy) we can only get native speed for up to 128kb
> I/O requests we already are down to 66% of native performance for 4kb
> requests even on my laptop running the Intel X25-M SSD for which the
> QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT was designed.
> If we ever get virtio-blk overhead low enough that this flag makes
> sense it should only be set based on a feature flag set by the host.
I agree with that rationale.
Acked-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-04 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-04 20:44 Christoph Hellwig
2009-09-04 21:18 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=x49ab1as91g.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markmc@redhat.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®