From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GSGi6-0003zk-0b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:27:10 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GSGi4-0003yz-HN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:27:09 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GSGi4-0003yo-Ar for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:27:08 -0400 Received: from [64.233.166.178] (helo=py-out-1112.google.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GSGmk-0007Ex-GR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:31:58 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so2968120pye for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <56d259a00609261027g1884a20aw9603111331f03eda@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:27:07 +0100 From: "Martin Guy" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Regression: QEMU 0.8.2 (and CVS) fails to boot a debian arm Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 12:14:44PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> I have setup a debian arm (unstable) under QEMU, until now using version >> 0.8.1 and a root on NFS. >> >> I wanted to use the new SCSI card emulation introduced in QEMU 0.8.2, >> but it fails to boot (still with root on NFS). It freeze, the last >> message being: >> >> INIT: version 2.86 booting > >I think I have found the problem. Actually the system is not frozen, but >just very slow. I now get while booting the kernel: > Calibrating delay loop... 12.16 BogoMIPS (lpj=60800) >instead of > Calibrating delay loop... 486.60 BogoMIPS (lpj=2433024) I suffered the same exact symptom, except that in my case it was caused by a kernel upgrade and fixed by using a kernel that was 2.6.16-rc3 or later while vanilla 2.6.16 gave this incredible slowdown. That may or may not be relevant... M