From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37203 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OoZFF-0002yW-C0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:59:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OoZFE-0002Wi-8a for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:59:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:11014) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OoZFE-0002WW-00 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:59:40 -0400 Message-ID: <4C763B05.9040107@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:59:33 +0200 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-kvm faster than qemu? References: <4C7573A2.8030708@codemonkey.ws> <4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws> <4C761D77.4090206@redhat.com> <20100826075921.GR10499@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100826075921.GR10499@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gleb Natapov Cc: walt , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 08/26/10 09:59, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:27AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> 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. >> > On which HW? Intel without ept. It's a Lenovo T500. > My guess is this is because of tpr patching. Most like, yes. cheers, Gerd