|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance.
To: |
Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance. |
From: |
Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:02:07 -0600 |
Cc: |
Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Philip R Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Kurt Garloff <garloff@xxxxxxx>, Xen development list <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vincent Hanquez <tab@xxxxxxxxx>, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>, Christian Limpach <Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:02:03 +0000 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
In-reply-to: |
<a4afc67b756d65d2e797a956f228cdbf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
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: |
<A95E2296287EAD4EB592B5DEEFCE0E9D1E3930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331070514.GH9204@xxxxxxx> <20050331071043.GI9204@xxxxxxx> <63537e2b84ddbba6cb3d970f73c6ab35@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331081900.GK9204@xxxxxxx> <20050331143312.GB13179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331153449.GE12579@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050331153925.GP9204@xxxxxxx> <a4afc67b756d65d2e797a956f228cdbf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) |
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005, at 16:39, Jens Axboe wrote:
Not necessarily - either your io rate is not fast enough to sustain a
substantial queue depth, in that case you get plugging on basically
every io anyways. If on the other hand the io rate is high enough to
maintain a queue depth of > 1, then the plugging will never take place
because the queue never empties.
So all in all, I don't think the temporary work-around will be such a
bad idea. I would still rather implement the queue tracking though, it
should not be more than a few lines of code.
I've checked in something along the lines of what you described into
both the 2.0-testing and the unstable trees. Looks to have identical
performance to the original simple patch, at least for a bulk 'dd'.
I'll do a pull of unstable and see what I get with o_direct, thanks.
-Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., (continued)
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance.,
Andrew Theurer <=
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Jens Axboe
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Philip R Auld
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Philip R Auld
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Jens Axboe
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Philip R Auld
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Keir Fraser
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Jens Axboe
- Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Jens Axboe
RE: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Ian Pratt
|
|
|
|
|