From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=40013 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OplOp-0005tn-9M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:10:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpjQF-0008KT-VJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:03:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13416) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OpjQF-0008DO-NL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:03:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4C7A7697.3060407@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:02:47 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-kvm faster than qemu? References: <4C7573A2.8030708@codemonkey.ws> <4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: 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: walt Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 08/27/2010 12:57 AM, walt wrote: > >> 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. > > Using that flag wipes out the difference entirely: both come in at > about 65 seconds. > > I also tried xp-32 running on the same two kvm64 virtual machines, > with slightly > different results: > > qemu-kvm: 35 seconds (65 seconds using -no-kvm-irqchip, a huge > disadvantage) > qemu: 58 seconds > > Anything unexpected in these results? Looks like kernel irqchip is the cause for the difference, which isn't too surprising. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function