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

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxx>]

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:
>
>   http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Virtio/Block/Latency

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

Stefan
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization