From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KR9Fo-0007Ru-74
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:26:24 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KR9Fm-0007PA-P2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:26:23 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44290 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KR9Fm-0007P2-Kq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:26:22 -0400
Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:36090)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <samuel.thibault@labri.fr>) id 1KR9Fm-0007d3-Gt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:26:22 -0400
Received: from samy by implementation.famille.thibault.fr with local (Exim
	4.69) (envelope-from <samuel.thibault@labri.fr>) id 1KR9FQ-0003yu-SD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:26:00 +0200
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:26:00 +0100
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH] Add HPET emulation to qemu (v2)
Message-ID: <20080807172600.GU6604@implementation.uk.xensource.com>
References: <20080807171705.GA15074@implementation.uk.xensource.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20080807171705.GA15074@implementation.uk.xensource.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

Samuel Thibault, le Thu 07 Aug 2008 18:17:05 +0100, a écrit :
> Beth Kon wrote some time ago:
> > But for an idle guest in both cases (with and without HPET), the
> > number of wakeups per second was relatively low (28).
> 
> Oh, btw, did you try to reduce the qemu window?

Err, maybe it's "minimize" in correct English :)

Samuel