From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LZjuI-0002hR-LO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:43:58 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LZjuG-0002da-Bn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:43:57 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60981 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LZjuF-0002ck-Rs
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:43:56 -0500
Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:56426)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>)
	id 1LZjuF-0004b0-DN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:43:55 -0500
Message-ID: <499BE64B.6020006@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:43:23 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: Qemu 2D performance plunges below acceptable
	levels
References: <7fac565a0902150510y1fb01c6awd1dcc3b6e7b8232d@mail.gmail.com>	<7fac565a0902150911u1ed66ef0gc55663d723c76ae4@mail.gmail.com>	<4999407C.5040009@eu.citrix.com>
	<49995266.3050707@redhat.com>	<4999913F.3040108@eu.citrix.com>
	<499AF87C.9090703@redhat.com>	<499B0965.9020007@eu.citrix.com>
	<7fac565a0902180046r1c0070bdrbf0af9511493c22b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fac565a0902180046r1c0070bdrbf0af9511493c22b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Alexey Eremenko wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Stefano Stabellini
> <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>> Do you see the problem only on X11 remote?
>>>> How bad is on vnc?
>>>>
>>> vnc regresses in exactly the same way.
>>>
> 
> Well, in my experience both local X11 and VNC are fast in KVM-84.
> 
> But remote X11/SDL performance plunged below usable levels.
> 


the performances of remote X11/SDL depend on the performances of SDL:
SDL blitting functions are optimized to be run locally, not remotely, so
is possible to see a slow down.