|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance.
What I was getting at was that the backend will split requests
up and issue each physical segment as a separate bio (at least in
the 2.0.5 tree I have in front of me). And that none of these
physical segments was more that 1 page.
So the request merging in the back end OS is important, no?
Ah, this reminds me I have one more question for Jens.
Since all the bio's that I queue up in a single invocation of
dispatch_rw_block_io() will actually be adjacent to each other (because
they're all from the same scatter-gather list) can I actually do
something like (very roughly):
bio = bio_alloc(GFP_KERNEL, nr_psegs);
for ( i = 0; i < nr_psegs; i++ )
bio_add_page(bio, blah...);
submit_bio(operation, bio);
Each of the biovecs that I queue may not be a full page in size (but
won't straddle a page boundary of course).
This would avoid the bio's having to be merged again later.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
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
Re: [Xen-devel] poor domU VBD performance., Andrew Theurer
|
|
|
|
|