From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F7LGi-0004qH-5r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:32:08 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1F7LGf-0004o4-Pb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:32:07 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7LGf-0004nx-HR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:32:05 -0500
Received: from [64.233.184.199] (helo=wproxy.gmail.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F7LKJ-0003Bv-7a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:35:51 -0500
Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so227510wra
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c10dbf450602091532x3d2213bk@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:32:03 +0300
From: Phil Krylov <phil.krylov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] -kernel-kqemu
In-Reply-To: <43EBBBBE.3070604@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060208230434.GA28760@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<20060209012752.GA30423@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<41e41e7a0602090046p18e89050m79c914f5293b2ade@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060209180531.GA13429@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<43EBBBBE.3070604@us.ibm.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 10/02/06, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Jim C. Brown wrote:
> > -kernel-kqemu virtualizes ring 0 code.
> >
> > So it basically makes qemu do what VMware does.
> >
> > IIRC someone reported a 33% speedup with the new option.
> >
> That was me.  That was a 33% speedup on win2k startup time.  kqemu (user
> only) has a negligible impact on win2k startup time which suggests this
> is mostly ring 0 code running which would make it a good benchmark for
> kernel-kqemu performance.
>
> This was a terribly unscientific benchmarking so don't read too much
> into it.

I am experiencing a huge (~5 times)  speedup in compilers and linkers.

Great ;))))

-- Ph.