From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FWGWA-000315-ED
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:31:06 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FWGW9-00030t-Hg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:31:05 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FWGW9-00030q-8Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:31:05 -0400
Received: from [209.234.73.39] (helo=narn.hozed.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1FWGXI-0005i5-Fq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:32:16 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:31:03 -0500
From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] -kernel-kqemu
Message-ID: <20060419173103.GG15855@narn.hozed.org>
References: <20060208230434.GA28760@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<20060209012752.GA30423@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<41e41e7a0602090046p18e89050m79c914f5293b2ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060209180531.GA13429@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<43EBBBBE.3070604@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43EBBBBE.3070604@us.ibm.com>
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

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:01:34PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jim C. Brown wrote:
> >-kernel-kqemu virtualizes ring 0 code.
> >
> >So it basically makes qemu do what VMware does.
> >
> >IIRC someone reported a 33% speedup with the new option.
> >  
> That was me.  That was a 33% speedup on win2k startup time.  kqemu (user 
> only) has a negligible impact on win2k startup time which suggests this 
> is mostly ring 0 code running which would make it a good benchmark for 
> kernel-kqemu performance.
> 
> This was a terribly unscientific benchmarking so don't read too much 
> into it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori

My win2k guest (with SP4, but not any updates) seemed to hang on startup
with -kernel-kqemu.

(This is today's qemu-cvs with kqemu-1.3.0pre5)