From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FftSe-0004Zf-UB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 02:55:16 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1FftSd-0004ZP-DH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 02:55:16 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FftSc-0004ZM-Sj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 02:55:14 -0400
Received: from [64.233.162.199] (helo=nz-out-0102.google.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FftVD-0007KM-1e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 02:57:55 -0400
Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id q3so13470nzb
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 15 May 2006 23:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46d6db660605152355u4d05624i2f07882b221f9913@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 08:55:13 +0200
From: "Christian MICHON" <christian.michon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
In-Reply-To: <000e01c678b3$cd372460$0464a8c0@athlon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200605152203.00826.mr@ramendik.ru> <44695113.8040708@us.ibm.com>
	<000e01c678b3$cd372460$0464a8c0@athlon>
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

how can we do the same if the host is winXP ?

Today, on linux guests, 2.4.x kernel boot faster than 2.6.x kernel
inside qemu (unless using "clock=3Dpit" on 2.6.x). 2 days ago,
when I tried to setup Solaris x86 10 guest inside winXP host, I
gave up since the timing engine inside the guest seems slow.

I would really like to know how to solve this on XP hosts.
Thanks,


On 5/16/06, Kazu <kazoo@r3.dion.ne.jp> wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> > Mikhail Ramendik wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> As I have reported before, it seems that on my host linux system kqemu
> does
> >> not work with guest win98se.
> >>
> >> Is there any benchmark that I could run in the guest, with and without
> kqemu,
> >> to check if this is so objectively? (Ideally I'd like two benchmarks -
> 16-bit
> >> and 32-bit code).
> >>
> >
> > The vast majority of guest benchmarking programs are going to give you
> > invalid results.  The clock within QEMU (rdtsc and wall clock) are not
> > very reliable and this is going to skew the results.
> >
>
> If you set /proc/sys/dev/rtc/max-user-freq to 1024 and disable cpuspeed
> service that is related to SpeedStep/PowerNow! on a host OS, the clock in
> guest OS works fine.
>
> I checked it on i686/x86_64 Linux host.
>
> Regards,
> Kazu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qemu-devel mailing list
> Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
>


--=20
Christian