From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] KVM: PPC: Virtualize Gekko guests Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:13:34 +0100 Message-ID: <4B71435E.7010103@suse.de> References: <1265298925-31954-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4B6EB7F6.10304@redhat.com> <4B6EE8B2.80009@redhat.com> <4B6F3890.8090401@suse.de> <4B6FD118.2090207@redhat.com> <4B714049.7010201@suse.de> <4B7141B3.8000309@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42870 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751819Ab0BILNf (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:13:35 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B7141B3.8000309@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Avi Kivity wrote: > On 02/09/2010 01:00 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >>> That's pretty impressive (never saw x86 with this exit rate) but it's >>> more than 1000 times slower than the hardware, assuming 1 fpu IPC (and >>> the processor can probably do more). An fpu intensive application >>> will slow to a crawl. >>> >> Measuring a typical Gekko application, I get about 200k-250k of fpu >> (incl. paired singles) instructions per second. >> > > Virtualized, yes? What's the rate on bare metal? Emulated. I can't measure anything on bare metal. Alex