From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:39978) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZqpT-00036s-Ns for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 18:57:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZqpQ-0004mV-K5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 18:57:51 -0400 Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([2001:470:1f15:c4f::1]:53987) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZqpQ-0004lL-DM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 07 May 2013 18:57:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 00:57:36 +0200 From: Aurelien Jarno Message-ID: <20130507225736.GO5000@ohm.aurel32.net> References: <8661yvqasu.fsf@shell.gmplib.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Reporting Heisenbugs in qemu List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Artyom Tarasenko Cc: Torbjorn Granlund , qemu-devel On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Artyom Tarasenko wrote: > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Torbjorn Granlund wrote: > > The 2nd table of http://gmplib.org/devel/testsystems.html shows all > > emulated systems I am using, most of which are qemu-based. > > Do I read it correct that qemu-system-ppc64 with the slowdown factor > of 33 is ~3 times faster than qemu-system-sparc64 with the slowdown > factor of 96 ? > Do they both use Debian Wheezy guest? You have a remark that ppc64 has > problems with its clock. Was it taken into account when the slowdown > factors were calculated? > Clock or not, it should be noted that qemu-system-sparc64 is undoubtedly slower (at least 5 to 10 times) than qemu-system-{arm,ppc,mips,...} on some type of load like perl scripts. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net