From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44037 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ooc1k-0007la-MN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:57:57 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1Ooc1j-0006FH-G6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:57:56 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16584)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1Ooc1j-0006F7-7O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:57:55 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:57:51 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-kvm faster than qemu?
Message-ID: <20100826125751.GT10499@redhat.com>
References: <i53ren$56d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C7573A2.8030708@codemonkey.ws>
	<i547rn$n1a$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws>
	<4C761D77.4090206@redhat.com> <20100826075921.GR10499@redhat.com>
	<4C766402.2080804@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C766402.2080804@codemonkey.ws>
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: walt <w41ter@gmail.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 07:54:26AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/26/2010 02:59 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:27AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >>   Hi,
> >>
> >>>Also try qemu-kvm with -no-kvm-irqchip. I can't believe an in-kernel
> >>>lapic would make this much of a difference with windows 7 but it's worth
> >>>trying.
> >>Didn't try win7, but for winxp it is a *huge* difference.
> >>
> >On which HW? My guess is this is because of tpr patching.
> 
> Does Windows 7 hit the TPR heavily?  I thought all modern versions
> of Windows significantly reduced their interactions with the TPR.
> 
Windows 7 doesn't. tpr patching explains only winxp slowdown.
--
			Gleb.