On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 04:57 +0200, Alon Levy wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 04:29:50PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 01:39 +0200, Alon Levy wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:08:43PM -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote: > > > > Since we were having some trouble as just outlined on our Windows tests, > > > > we thought we would let SPICE put its best foot forward and try a Fedora > > > > 15 guest running on a Fedora 15 KVM host. > > > > > > Heh, seeing as windows support is much more advanced that is not quite how > > > I'd put it. Certainly we are working on putting linux on equal footing, > > > but > > > the most work so far has gone into the windows driver, not the linux one. > > > > > > > > > > > When it worked, it was amazing. However, most of the time, the system > > > > was barely responsive and the X process was consuming 100% of the CPU. > > > > We initially thought this might be from KDE4 so we installed twm and > > > > experienced the same. We then launched a few applications without any > > > > Windows Manager at all and saw the same results. > > > > > > > > Alon was helpful on IRC and mentioned that it was because there was no > > > > kernel module for the driver. > > > > > > Maybe that seemed implied, but I didn't mean it like that. I just > > > mentioned > > > this in passing, that a kernel module doesn't exist. The main thing we > > > could > > > use a kernel module for is interrupt support. But spice works without > > > that as > > > well, since the communication is done asynchronously most of the time from > > > host to guest (and this is the only place where an interrupt is useful - > > > to > > > wakeup the guest occasionally). > > > > > > > > > > > Does this mean that there is no driver for the QXL driver and thus it > > > > runs in user space and drives up the utilization? If so, what are people > > > > doing who are running this in production? > > > > > > > > This leads to another question. Our understanding is that rendering is > > > > done on the client and not the guest unless the client is unable to do > > > > so (haven't read enough on the protocol to understand how this is > > > > determined). Does this mean that, in cases where rendering is happening > > > > on the guest that a high end graphics card in the physical host would > > > > improve performance? Our experience with using NX is that the physical > > > > hardware is never involved but that is a completely different paradigm. > > > > > > > > > > Rendering is done on the client always. It is also done on the server if > > > the guest requires the results of rendering, which can happen for instance > > > when you do a print screen. > > > > > > > If the rendering is taking place on the client, why is the lack of a > > > > kernel module for QXL causing a problem? Thanks - John > > > > > > Not the problem. The problem is simply in the X driver, and perhaps you > > > can supply > > > some more details to allow to reproduce the 100% cpu scenario? > > <snip> > > Hello, all. This is still an issue for us. What additional information > > can we provide to help resolve this problem? Thanks - John > > > Well, I want to reproduce this, so I guess if you could point out something > specific, > what is the client hardware, which client are you running, what is the guest > doing? > Also, could you try both spicec and spicy/vinagre? I created a Windows netbook and compiled spice client from 0.8.1. I connected to the Fedora 15 guest and still had the same excessive CPU utilization with our very simple test of opening konsole to run top and then opening kwrite. I did not expect this would solve the problem basd upon Alon's statement that it is a guest driver problem and I was not disappointed! The problem remained. Is there any further information I can supply to help solve this problem? Thanks - John
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
