From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54131 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OokVQ-000384-Uj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:01:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gceq-qemu-devel@m.gmane.org>) id 1OokSG-000265-2O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:57:53 -0400
Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:38661)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gceq-qemu-devel@m.gmane.org>) id 1OokSF-00025f-Rd
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:57:52 -0400
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gceq-qemu-devel@m.gmane.org>) id 1OokSA-0005b1-BY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:57:46 +0200
Received: from adsl-69-234-212-114.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net ([69.234.212.114])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:57:46 +0200
Received: from w41ter by adsl-69-234-212-114.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net with local
	(Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:57:46 +0200
From: walt <w41ter@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:57:30 -0700
Message-ID: <i56o0g$b27$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <i53ren$56d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C7573A2.8030708@codemonkey.ws>
	<i547rn$n1a$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <4C75A736.80005@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-kvm faster than qemu?
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 08/25/2010 04:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 08/25/2010 06:09 PM, walt wrote:
>> On 08/25/2010 12:48 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> On 08/25/2010 02:37 PM, walt wrote:

>>>> I find that qemu-kvm boots to the Win7 login prompt in 25 seconds,
>>>> while qemu with kvm enabled takes about 45 seconds.

>>> Also, what's your full command line?

>> /usr/local/bin/qemu-system-x86_64 -m 1024 -enable-kvm -cpu kvm64 w7.diff

> You'll get more accurate and repeatable results by using:
>
> qemu-system-x86_64 -m 1024 -enable-kvm -cpu kvm64 -drive file=w7.diff,cache=none

Turning off the cache slows both of them down, as I would expect:

qemu-kvm:  52 seconds
qemu:      65 seconds

> 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?

Thanks for your time.