Re: [Xen-devel] pvops upstream status

[Sander Eikelenboom <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tuesday, June 17, 2014, 3:34:17 PM, you wrote:

> On 06/17/2014 12:55 PM, Fabio Fantoni wrote:
>> Il 17/06/2014 11:52, Juergen Gross ha scritto:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'd like to update the wiki page
>>>
>>> http://wiki.xenproject.org/wiki/XenParavirtOps
>>>
>>> regarding the current status of the pvops kernel. I've just started to
>>> collect the missing bits and who is working on them. Up to now I have a
>>> SUSE internal list, some data from Konrad, and, of course, the EFI
>>> patches sent by Daniel last week:
>>>
>>> - EFI support (patches posted by Daniel Kiper on 13.06.2014)
>>> - use of PAT (i.e. WC memory type) not possible
>>> - microcode loader (runtime)
>>> - 500Gb+ support
>>> - expected to be dead (under Xen) code cannot be easily verified to
>>>   indeed be dead (e.g. IOMMU, PCI ATS, PRI, and PASID), leaving the
>>>   risk of bad interaction between hypervisor and Dom0 if a new, active
>>>   user of that code appears and goes unnoticed
>>> - user mode pvclock
>>> - possibly not suitable for pre-4.0.1 hypervisor (definitely not as
>>>   Dom0)
>>> - blktap (blktap3 replacement stalled)
>>
>> I think blktap is no more needed, qdisk of qemu upstream (already used
>> by xen) has much superior performance.
>> One my first benchmark of long time ago in attachment.

> Okay, noted. We'll have to verify that all blktap protocols and
> scenarios are handled properly and with good performance by qdisk.

> Thanks, Juergen

Another benchmark:
https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/20131025%20-%20Storage%20Performance%20PDF.pdf

seems to show not that much difference between tapdisk and qdisk (both 
relatively slow compared to blkback)

 --
Sander


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel