From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ffwhq-00069l-C9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:23:10 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Ffwhn-00068P-Kk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:23:09 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ffwhn-00068G-D6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:23:07 -0400
Received: from [64.233.162.194] (helo=nz-out-0102.google.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FfwkP-0003Q8-JG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:25:49 -0400
Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id i11so13529nzh
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 16 May 2006 03:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <46d6db660605160323g2316e3e7qec55e0263faf723c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:23:03 +0200
From: "Christian MICHON" <christian.michon@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
In-Reply-To: <000801c678ca$d90cf5f0$0464a8c0@athlon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200605152203.00826.mr@ramendik.ru> <44695113.8040708@us.ibm.com>
	<000e01c678b3$cd372460$0464a8c0@athlon>
	<46d6db660605152355u4d05624i2f07882b221f9913@mail.gmail.com>
	<000801c678ca$d90cf5f0$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

On 5/16/06, Kazu <kazoo@r3.dion.ne.jp> wrote:
> It is normal that 2.4 kernel boots faster than 2.6 kernel, isn't it? I do=
n't
> know why Solaris x86 10 doesn't work.

solaris works, it's just painfully slow.
lots of time is wasted in ide-probing inside 2.6.x, because of the
way time is measured in the qemu guest.

Maybe recompiling 2.6.x guest kernel, telling it which internal timer to
use would be better. Does anyone know how to do this or tried it already?

--=20
Christian