On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:14 +0300, Dor Laor wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 01:05 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:03:23 +0800, Asias He<asias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 06/18/2012 03:46 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:53:10 +0800, Asias He<asias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> This patch introduces bio-based IO path for virtio-blk.
> >>>
> >>> Why make it optional?
> >>
> >> request-based IO path is useful for users who do not want to bypass the
> >> IO scheduler in guest kernel, e.g. users using spinning disk. For users
> >> using fast disk device, e.g. SSD device, they can use bio-based IO path.
> >
> > Users using a spinning disk still get IO scheduling in the host though.
> > What benefit is there in doing it in the guest as well?
>
> The io scheduler waits for requests to merge and thus batch IOs
> together. It's not important w.r.t spinning disks since the host can do
> it but it causes much less vmexits which is the key issue for VMs.
Is the amount of exits caused by virtio-blk significant at all with
EVENT_IDX?
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
[KVM Development]
[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]