From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FgGOx-0001ta-8e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 03:24:59 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FgGOv-0001s7-Ly
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 03:24:58 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FgGOv-0001ri-Di
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 03:24:57 -0400
Received: from [211.5.2.75] (helo=nm01omta017.dion.ne.jp)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FgGRj-0007br-Ox
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 17 May 2006 03:27:52 -0400
Message-ID: <005601c67983$00ea7580$0464a8c0@athlon>
From: "Kazu" <kazoo@r3.dion.ne.jp>
References: <200605152203.00826.mr@ramendik.ru>
	<44695113.8040708@us.ibm.com><000e01c678b3$cd372460$0464a8c0@athlon><46d6db660605152355u4d05624i2f07882b221f9913@mail.gmail.com><000801c678ca$d90cf5f0$0464a8c0@athlon>
	<46d6db660605160323g2316e3e7qec55e0263faf723c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 16:24:58 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 7:23 PM Christian MICHON wrote:

>On 5/16/06, Kazu <kazoo@r3.dion.ne.jp> wrote:
>> It is normal that 2.4 kernel boots faster than 2.6 kernel, isn't it? I
don't
>> know why Solaris x86 10 doesn't work.

>solaris works, it's just painfully slow.
>lots of time is wasted in ide-probing inside 2.6.x, because of the
>way time is measured in the qemu guest.

>Maybe recompiling 2.6.x guest kernel, telling it which internal timer to
>use would be better. Does anyone know how to do this or tried it already?

Fedora Core 3 doesn't boot in 0.8.0 binary. But it boots almost the same
speed in 0.8.1 binary as on Linux host.

I measured FC3 booting time without kqemu.
On WinXP host:
0.8.0 binary     can't boot.
0.8.1 binary    4min 15sec

On Linux host:
0.8.0           4min 15sec
0.8.1           4min  5sec


I measured Knoppix v3.8 booting time.
On WinXP host: fb800x600 desktop=icewm
0.8.0          5min 54sec
0.8.1          3min 4sec

>>From Knoppix booting, I think time for scanning hardware is improved as on
Linux host.
I think the problem is not related to measuring time.

Regards,
Kazu