From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31E4190FEA for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:04:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1265035B2F for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:04:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:04:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5AE2147D2E for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:04:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1164b168-8d0b-4929-8c1f-0ccac09f6eb4@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:04:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Markus Frank , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20231108085254.53574-1-m.frank@proxmox.com> <20231108085254.53574-5-m.frank@proxmox.com> <2c95ac42-2085-47ea-b5b4-97cd8f8d2cd0@proxmox.com> <76fc872f-3b9e-4b5c-9476-3dd331e3adaa@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <76fc872f-3b9e-4b5c-9476-3dd331e3adaa@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.072 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [virtiofs.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v8 4/7] feature #1027: virtio-fs support X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:04:31 -0000 Am 13.02.24 um 12:52 schrieb Markus Frank: > Thanks, > > I already moved most of the code into a new PVE/QemuServer/Virtiofs.pm > module. > Great! :) > Just an clarification & question concerning the queue-size: > > On  2024-01-31 16:02, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> +    push @$devices, '-chardev', >>> "socket,id=virtfs$i,path=/var/run/virtiofsd/vm$vmid-fs$i"; >>> +    push @$devices, '-device', 'vhost-user-fs-pci,queue-size=1024' >> >> Any specific reason for queue-size=1024? Better performance than the >> default 128? > > There was problem with Windows Guests: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873088 > https://github.com/virtio-win/kvm-guest-drivers-windows/issues/764 > > queue-size=1024 is still in every documentation and every qemu command > for virtiofs I have seen used 1024. Good to know! Please add a comment referencing this, so people looking at the code will be aware of it and why the value was chosen. > Would it better to add a parameter to configure this queue-size? We can add a parameter if enough users with valid use cases request it. But to start out, I don't see much need for it.