From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L00Lz-0002Uo-UR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:00:52 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1L00Ly-0002UR-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:00:51 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59299 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1L00Ly-0002UO-47
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:00:50 -0500
Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.149]:28987)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1L00Lx-0006BL-OL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:00:49 -0500
Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so59977qwc.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:00:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4919F277.9050900@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:00:39 -0600
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [5636] Run timers from host alarm timer callback
References: <E1KxpYJ-0001Cj-Mu@cvs.savannah.gnu.org>	<49120B5F.5000805@codemonkey.ws>
	<3e1533500811070352x2c3430b9k1eab7af8795f163d@mail.gmail.com>
	<49144B66.8080601@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <49144B66.8080601@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Cc: Luis Pureza <pureza@student.dei.uc.pt>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Luis Pureza wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This commit caused a noticeable slowdown while using the instruction
>> counting mechanism. I'm testing with the sparc-test image and with
>> --icount auto.
>>   
>
> Yeah, I take it that all timers don't result in signals when using 
> icount and that we rely on select() timeout instead.  Let me look a 
> little more closely at the code and I'll come up with a fix.

Did r5623 happen to fix this problem?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori