From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C0U3n-0004p1-7t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:53:39 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1C0U3l-0004nx-Gh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:53:38 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C0U3l-0004nu-DY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:53:37 -0400 Received: from [62.241.160.193] (helo=pengo.systems.pipex.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C0Typ-00006Q-L5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:48:31 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] chroot to ARM Gentoo install. Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:48:27 +0100 References: <200408241238.32517.james@alentdesignsolutions.com> <200408242326.58150.paul@codesourcery.com> <412D147D.3020803@bellard.org> In-Reply-To: <412D147D.3020803@bellard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200408270048.27414.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wednesday 25 August 2004 23:36, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > I am curious to know what speed you get in user mode emulation. I did some benchmarking on on a 2GHz amd64 machine running in 32-bit mode. I don't have a real arm machine for comparison. I did two runs. One native (i486), the other soft-float armv4 using qemu. First I ran the SPECint benchmarks. These mainly stress integer CPU and memory performance. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to give actual results, so I'll just give a summary for now. Five tests fail to execute properly. I haven't tried the executables on real arm hardware, so these may be compiler/libc bugs. One test runs a mere 60% slower. The other six tests take between 3 and 7 times as long to run. I also ran the bonnie++ disk IO benchmark. The machine was under intermittent light load while the tests were run, so there's probably some variation in the numbers. Native: 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP 4G 30667 75 31279 12 14788 5 21951 60 34922 5 161.0 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 2296 98 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 2267 97 +++++ +++ 10236 99 qemu-arm: 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP 4G 0 0 31734 10 0 0 +++++ +++ 36888 5 167.8 0 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 2733 97 +++++ +++ +++++ +++ 2863 98 +++++ +++ 9947 93 Strangely the qemu results are showing zero for per-char IO. I guess this is a bug somewhere. The per-char write results should be ~6000K/s Paul