From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kiszka Subject: Suggestions for testing VAPIC / TPR patching Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:35:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4F17D5E3.1030105@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm Return-path: Received: from thoth.sbs.de ([192.35.17.2]:18823 "EHLO thoth.sbs.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752873Ab2ASIfu (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:35:50 -0500 Received: from mail1.siemens.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thoth.sbs.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q0J8Zm9H020201 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:35:48 +0100 Received: from mchn199C.mchp.siemens.de ([139.22.34.123]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id q0J8ZmZR010557 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:35:48 +0100 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi again, what is the best way to check if the TPR patching feature of qemu-kvm is working and performs efficiently? I suppose Windows XP guests, e.g.? How to measure this best? I'm about to start porting it to upstream and like to prepare a good test case. Thanks, Jan PS: After the /kvm removal, I'm currently counting a bit more than 7000 LOC difference in qemu-kvm. We are converging. -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux