Re: qemu-dm performance

[Steven Smith <sos22-xen@srcf.ucam.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1658 bytes --]

> Also, while testing I noticed a small bug with vncviewer using a
> sles9sp3 guest.  My initial attempt to view a guest causes vnc to render
> a small window that doesn't respond to mouse movements.  I have to close
> this window and then start the vncviewer again to get a resized and
> usable window.  I'm only seeing this on my first attempt to view the
> guest.  Any suggestions?
Yep: update to a version of xen-unstable which has cset 11589.  It should
hit xen-unstable in the next couple of hours.

Steven.



> 
> Thx again for your help,
> 
> T. McAfee
> Xen Testing
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Smith [mailto:sos22@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Steven
> Smith
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:23 PM
> To: McAfee, Tommie M
> Cc: Dugger, Donald D; Anthony Liguori; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com;
> sos22@srcf.ucam.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] qemu-dm performance
> 
> > >Deleting this function should result in a blank VGA screen for your
> HVM
> > guest,
> > 
> > I not sure why but I'm not seeing this.  Here is what how I commented
> > out vram_dirty (as shown in gdb):
> > 
> > 1563        for (y = 0; y < s->vram_size; y += TARGET_PAGE_SIZE){
> > 1564            /*if (vram_dirty(s, y, TARGET_PAGE_SIZE))
> > 1565                cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty(s->vram_offset + y);
> > */
> > 1566        }
> It turns out that there was a bug a little later on which meant that
> the dirty bits were never actually cleared.  Fixing this seems to have
> fairly drastically reduced qemu overhead.  The fix is now present in
> xen-unstable.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steven.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel