From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54615 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OobyS-0005qg-5y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:54:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OobyR-0005e5-15
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:54:32 -0400
Received: from mail-qy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]:33727)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1OobyQ-0005dr-U4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:54:30 -0400
Received: by qyk5 with SMTP id 5so6274903qyk.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 05:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C766402.2080804@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:54:26 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
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>
	<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: <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: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: walt <w41ter@gmail.com>, Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/26/2010 02:59 AM, 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? My guess is this is because of tpr patching.
>    

Does Windows 7 hit the TPR heavily?  I thought all modern versions of 
Windows significantly reduced their interactions with the TPR.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

> --
> 			Gleb.
>