From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=43056 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OoXHG-0008QE-Hm
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:53:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1OoXHF-0007Ml-6w
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:53:38 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47696)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <kraxel@redhat.com>) id 1OoXHE-0007Md-Te
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:53:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4C761D77.4090206@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:53:27 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-kvm faster than qemu?
References: <i53ren$56d$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<4C7573A2.8030708@codemonkey.ws>	<i547rn$n1a$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: walt <w41ter@gmail.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

   Hi,

> Also try qemu-kvm with -no-kvm-irqchip. I can't believe an in-kernel
> lapic would make this much of a difference with windows 7 but it's worth
> trying.

Didn't try win7, but for winxp it is a *huge* difference.

cheers,
   Gerd