On 07.02.21 19:37, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 2/7/21 2:50 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Your latest code from the rth7680/tci-next branch is twice as fast as my code >> with BIOS boot and qemu-x86_64 on sparc64. That's great. >> >> With that code I don't get any BIOS output at all when running qemu-i386. >> That's not so good. >> >> Did I test the correct branch? If yes, I could try the same test on amd64 and >> arm64 hosts. > > Yes, tci-next is the correct branch. I've just rebased it against master, > which includes the first 30-odd patches. > > What host do you not see bios output from qemu-system-i386 (I assume that's a > typo above)? I see correct output on x86_64, sparc64, ppc64le, and aarch64 > hosts.
Right, the TCI test was done with qemu-system-i386 of course. I repeated the TCI test with qemu-system-i386 and qemu-system-x86_64 and the rebased branch. The system emulation for a BIOS boot works on Apple M1 arm64 with less that 5 s user time (similar fast as before the latest TCI changes): ./qemu-system-i386 --nographic 4,28s user 0,03s system 37% cpu 11,398 total ./qemu-system-x86_64 --nographic 4,39s user 0,03s system 34% cpu 12,982 total The same test shows similar timings on an AMD64 server: ./qemu-system-i386 --nographic user 0m4,958s before tcg-next, 0m5,115s after tcg-next ./qemu-system-x86_64 --nographic user 0m4,967s before tcg-next, 0m5,263s after tcg-next Here tci-next is slightly slower than the old code. The results on sparc64 did not change with the rebased tci-next: qemu-system-i386 still fails to run, and qemu-system-x86_64 takes about 20 s user time. Stefan
