From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1vME-0006G9-DB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:32:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1vMA-0006Fl-69 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:32:45 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36171 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1vMA-0006Fi-1c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:32:42 -0400 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.184]:60995) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K1vM9-0007yz-Qg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 May 2008 23:32:42 -0400 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id y6so2916715tia.18 for ; Thu, 29 May 2008 20:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:32:36 +0700 From: "Mulyadi Santosa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: KQEMU code organization In-Reply-To: <483F2437.1090606@bellard.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <483C3D55.2000508@siemens.com> <483EA1AD.1010901@bellard.org> <20080529161322.GB21610@shareable.org> <200805291726.05398.paul@codesourcery.com> <20080529163536.GD21610@shareable.org> <483EEB5D.1030004@codemonkey.ws> <483F2437.1090606@bellard.org> 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 Hi.. On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 4:46 AM, Fabrice Bellard wrote: > > Code patching seems interesting. Although I did not look in detail, it > seems that VirtualBox use it extensively and gets very good performance > without using hardware virtualization. I second that. Beside being Qemu users, I am also now a loyal user of VirtualBox. I guess that VBox can identify hot spot (repeating instructions or TB) and tries harder and harder to optimize it. It could be related to what I call "smart flush of translation cache"... not entirely flushing cached TB but selectively doing so. However, I also guess that VBox is tightly related to its kernel module, thus without it ...it might be slower than Qemu/TCG..but I have no hard data to support it. Now, I wonder how transitive does sparc to x86 translation while still maintaining speed? Does it do what linux-user does? regards, Mulyadi