Linux Virtualization - Mar 2014 - [PATCH] virtio-blk: make the queue depth the max supportable by the hypervisor

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas
<venkateshs at google.com> wrote:
>> And I rewrote it substantially, mainly to take
>> VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC into account.
>>
>> As QEMU sets the vq size for PCI to 128, Venkatash's patch
wouldn't
>> have made a change.  This version does (since QEMU also offers
>> VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC.
>
> That divide-by-2 produced the same queue depth as the prior
> computation in QEMU was deliberate -- but raising it to 128 seems
> pretty reasonable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs at google.com>
Soft ping about this patch.

Thanks,
-- vs;

Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs at google.com>
writes:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas
> <venkateshs at google.com> wrote:
>>> And I rewrote it substantially, mainly to take
>>> VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC into account.
>>>
>>> As QEMU sets the vq size for PCI to 128, Venkatash's patch
wouldn't
>>> have made a change.  This version does (since QEMU also offers
>>> VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC.
>>
>> That divide-by-2 produced the same queue depth as the prior
>> computation in QEMU was deliberate -- but raising it to 128 seems
>> pretty reasonable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Srinivas <venkateshs at google.com>
>
> Soft ping about this patch.
It's head of my virtio-next tree.

Cheers,
Rusty.

On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 02:22:50PM +1030, Rusty Russell
wrote:
> 
> It's head of my virtio-next tree.
Hey Rusty,

While we have your attention --- what's your opinion about adding TRIM
support to virtio-blk.  I understand that you're starting an OASIS
standardization process for virtio --- what does that mean vis-a-vis a
patch to plumb discard support through virtio-blk?

Thanks!

						- Ted