From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHfAG-0001Le-9o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:06:16 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NHfAB-0001FJ-Et for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:06:15 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60186 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NHfAB-0001F2-8f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:06:11 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:41025) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NHfAB-0007L0-CY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:06:11 -0500 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NHfA6-0003ib-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:06:06 -0500 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] irq latency and tcg Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:06:02 +0000 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200912071506.02310.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Blue Swirl , Artyom Tarasenko On Monday 07 December 2009, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > Can it be that qemu (-system-sparc in my case, but I guess it's more > or less similar on all platforms) reacts to irqs slower than a real > hardware due to tcg optimizations? Interrupts generally only trigger at branch instructions, or similar. Using -icount should give you precise interrupt delivery. Paul