From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LZjz5-0005In-0q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:48:55 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LZjz3-0005Hy-61
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:48:54 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41721 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LZjz3-0005Hu-21
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:48:53 -0500
Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:60580)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>)
	id 1LZjz2-00056L-Ms
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:48:52 -0500
Message-ID: <499BE774.2070707@eu.citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:48:20 +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>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0902181232450.7502@linmac.oyster.ru>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902181232450.7502@linmac.oyster.ru>
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>

malc wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, 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.
> 
> FWIW same thing happened to Mac OS X + SDL.
> 


Are you talking about SDL local?
If so, is your host a big endian machine and the guest a little endian?
What is the color depth and bpp of the guest (I assume that the host is
32bpp)?
As usual two good tests are to check the vnc case and a guest in 32bpp too.

I tried to repeat the "tree C:\" test on qemu i386 but I couldn't see
any significant difference.