Re: [PATCH] virtio_blk: Drop unused request tracking list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Asias He <asias.hejun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, Stefan
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Benchmark shows small performance improvement on fusion io device.
>>> Before:
>>>  seq-read : io=1,024MB, bw=19,982KB/s, iops=39,964, runt= 52475msec
>>>  seq-write: io=1,024MB, bw=20,321KB/s, iops=40,641, runt= 51601msec
>>>  rnd-read : io=1,024MB, bw=15,404KB/s, iops=30,808, runt= 68070msec
>>>  rnd-write: io=1,024MB, bw=14,776KB/s, iops=29,552, runt= 70963msec
>>> After:
>>>  seq-read : io=1,024MB, bw=20,343KB/s, iops=40,685, runt= 51546msec
>>>  seq-write: io=1,024MB, bw=20,803KB/s, iops=41,606, runt= 50404msec
>>>  rnd-read : io=1,024MB, bw=16,221KB/s, iops=32,442, runt= 64642msec
>>>  rnd-write: io=1,024MB, bw=15,199KB/s, iops=30,397, runt= 68991msec
>>> Signed-off-by: Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c |   10 ----------
>>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>> Thanks for providing performance results.  It's a bit scary that this
>> unused list has an impact...I'm sure we have worse things elsewhere in
>> the KVM storage code path.
> Do you find any worse things? I saw your trace work here:

I haven't updated those results in a long time because I no longer use
that benchmarking environment.

Virtualization mailing list

[KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Find Someone Nice]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]
Add to Google Powered by Linux