From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 4 18:18:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3467916A41F for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:18:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DBE43D64 for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:18:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from [212.40.38.87] (oddity-e.topspin.kiev.ua [212.40.38.87]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA29689; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:18:00 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <436BA5D7.2040202@icyb.net.ua> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:17:59 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051016) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Nelson References: <436B7B86.4060602@icyb.net.ua> <20051104152622.GH67512@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20051104152622.GH67512@dan.emsphone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kqemu speed up X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:18:21 -0000 on 04/11/2005 17:26 Dan Nelson said the following: > Maybe something to do with reading /dev/random ends up doing an > operation that even kqemu must pass up to the host OS? kqemu simply > allows more host instructions to be processed by the host CPU directly > without translation (since regular qemu is simply a very fast x86 > instruction emulator). If you were to compare an application that > spends most of its time in userland, you should see more of an > improvement. yes, this seems to be completely the case - I time-d several different programs and in almost all cases user times seem to be quite close between guest and host, but sys times are magnitudes different. Makes one wonder what is going on in kernel land :-) -- Andriy Gapon