Hi, Stanislav, Thanks for your commit.
Ziv On 4/15/14, 2:14 PM, "Stanislav Vorobiov" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi everyone, > >The patch that fixes windows performance degradation had been merged - >https://review.tizen.org/gerrit/#/c/19414/ > >We suggest all interested parties to update. Since IVI SDK release is >preparing, this is especially important for IVI emulator. > >Thanks. > >On 04/12/2014 02:27 AM, 박상호 wrote: >> Hi Stanislav >> Thank you for such a quick implementation. >> Could you push the patch to tizen branch? Gerrit is better to review >>codes. >> >> ps) >> This is from mobile. So I have not yet reviewed your codes. >> >> >> ---원본 메시지--- >> 발신인 : Stanislav Vorobiov >> 발신일자 : 2014/04/11 18:27 (GMT+09:00) >> 제목 : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >> Hi, Sangho and Seokyeon I've made a patch for qemu that uses >>WaitForMultipleObjects directly, if no objections then I'll send it >>upstream. P.S: I'll make a patch for glib a bit later, my inet >>connection is really slow today, so cloning latest sources >> takes forever... On 04/11/2014 10:36 AM, Stanislav Vorobiov wrote: > >>Hi, Sangho and Seokyeon > > See below > > On 04/11/2014 06:43 AM, Sangho >>Park wrote: >> Hi, Stanislav >> >> >> >> Thanks for feedback. >> >> I've >>tested the time precision of >> WaitForMultipleObject() even if dwMilliseconds < 10. I used >>qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_HOST) and it is very precise in my windows >>box. After some more tests in other windows boxes, we can reasonably >>assume that the >> current win32 g_poll implementation >> in glib is suck, (the g_poll() implementation is still same at the glib >>2.40) and this 10msec hack may be pushed to tizen. > Yeah, this is in >>fact a bug in glib, when we call g_poll we mean "wait at least this >>timeout and if there's no I/O available, >> return", but current > glib is implemented like "just test if I/O is >>available and return immediately", i.e. we don't care if on windows wait >>is not as precise as on linux, the "at least" contract must > be >>respected, even if it means waiting 15ms or >> more. So I guess we need to send a patch to glib upstream as well. > >> >>>> >> >> I'm afraid that the qemu_poll_ns() and the hack make something >>>>to wait longer and, as a result, decrease the responsiveness of guest >>>>and qemu. Then, qemu_poll_ns() need to be >> re-implemented by using win32 api. > Yes, 100% agreed. BTW, since the >>timers in QEMU are now so precise, they even added this: > > >>prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, 1, 0, 0, 0); > > to linux's qemu-timer.c, this >>makes select/poll calls as precise as possible. >> There's no alternative on windows for this AFAIK, so I guess calling >>WaitForMultipleObjects with the exact timeout is > the best we can do... >>> > I guess I'll create these 2 patches then, for glib and qemu, I'll >>>post them here on the list for review and >> then we can send > them out if no objections... > >> >> >> >> ------- >>*Original Message* ------- >> >> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovExpert >>Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/Samsung Electronics >> >> *Date* : Apr 11, >>2014 01:41 (GMT+09:00) >> >> *Title* : Re: >> [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >> >> >> >> >>Hi, Sangho >> >> I've tested with both 3.4 and 3.12 kernel and I think >>that performance is exactly as good as in 1.6! >> Since timers were >>refactored they now use more precise timeouts >> and that causes problems on windows because of g_poll as you said, >>true. >> >> Thank you very much for helping with this, you've done >>amazing job! >> >> P.S: Since this is qemu bug, this fix should probably >>go upstream, but I'm not sure about the value of >> 10 either, m.b. >> we can just change qemu's qemu_poll_ns to just use >>WaitForMultipleObjects on windows and pass whatever timeout the caller >>passed without >> these (timeout >= 10) hacks... But that has to be >>tried out first... >> >> And once again, >> thanks a lot! >> >> On 04/10/2014 07:32 PM, 박상호 wrote: >>> Hi, >>Stanislav and Seokyeon. >>> >>> >>> >>> At first, thank you for >>information and a nice tool. >>> >>> >>> >>> I thought that >>aio_ctx_prepare() and aio_ctx_check() are called too enormousely >> many times. And I found that almost every g_poll() in qemu_poll_ns() is >>immediately returned even though the timeout is not zero. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> In glib/gpoll.c of glib-2.43.3, >>> >>> 325 /* If not, and we have a >>>>>significant timeout, poll again with >>> >> 326 * timeout then. Note that this will return indication for only >>> >>327 * one event, or only for messages. We ignore timeouts less than >>> >>328 * ten milliseconds as they are mostly pointless on Windows, the >>> >>329 * MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx() call >> will timeout right away >>> 330 * anyway. >>> 331 */ >>> 332 if (retval >>== 0 && (timeout == INFINITE || timeout >= 10)) >>> 333 retval = >>poll_rest (poll_msgs, handles, nhandles, fds, nfds, timeout); >>> it >>does not call poll when timeout < 10. So the >> enormouse g_poll() calls are really polling resources. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I patched qemu_poll_ns() and I feel better. >>> >>> However, I'm not >>sure that it is as good as 1.6. Please check the patch. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I need to check the comment of glib - i.e >> Is really the precision of WaitForMultipleObject is less than 10 >>milleseconds. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>> >>> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovExpert Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W >>>>>Group/삼성전자 >>> >>> *Date* : 2014-04-10 16:23 >> (GMT+09:00) >>> >>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator >>on windows performance >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, Sangho >>> >>> Thanks for the >>info! BTW, gprof has one drawback - it can't profile multithreaded >>applications, i.e. it gives wrong results. I >> recommend using >>> Intel VTune Amplifier XE, it's very useful tool, >>you can use it without recompiling qemu, it'll show you everything - >>stack traces, profiles, it even >>> shows SMP friendlyness. >>> >>> I've >>also done some more digging into this aio >> thing. Here's what I found, in main-loop.c:os_host_main_loop_wait >>(win32 dependent code) >>> if I replace: >>> >>> select_ret = >>select(nfds + 1, &rfds, &wfds, &xfds, &tv0); >>> >>> with: >>> >>> >>qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread(); >>> select_ret = select(nfds + >> 1, &rfds, &wfds, &xfds, &tv0); >>> qemu_mutex_lock_iothread(); >>> >>> >>then the problem almost entirely cured for portio (vga), but for mmio >>it's still present (vigs). So, the problem here is a livelock >>> >>between main thread and io thread. I'm currently >> studying the mmio part, i.e. we probably need to stick these >>> >>qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread()/qemu_mutex_lock_iothread() somewhere else. >>>>> >>> Another thing that looks strange to me is the fact that adding >> qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread()/qemu_mutex_lock_iothread() >>> makes so >>much difference, the thing is 'tv0' in that select is always 0, this >>means "poll and return immediately" and this select >>> actually returns >>immediately, so why does unlock/lock makes >> so much difference ? I mean, if tv was > 0 then yes, main thread waits >>>>> on selects, io thread livelocks on mutex, this makes sense, but not >>>>>when tv is 0... I'm also studying this... >>> >>> On 04/10/2014 10:48 >>>>>AM, 박상호 wrote: >>>> Hi, Seokyeon and >> Stanislav >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I profiled the qemu in windows by using >>gprof (-pg). I run the emulator until I show the menu screen and then >>shutdown. It takes about 70 seconds. Please check the attached result. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - Top ranks >>>> >>>> >> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. >>>> % cumulative self self total >>>>>> time seconds seconds calls ms/call ms/call name >>>> 16.48 1.05 >>>>>>1.05 maru_vga_draw_line32_32 >>>> 11.62 1.79 0.74 __udivdi3 >>>> >>>>>>6.75 2.22 0.43 os_host_main_loop_wait >>>> 5.65 >> 2.58 0.36 aio_ctx_prepare >>>> 5.34 2.92 0.34 111422776 0.00 0.00 >>qemu_mutex_unlock >>>> 5.34 3.26 0.34 aio_ctx_check >>>> 5.18 3.59 0.33 >>8507037 0.00 0.00 slirp_pollfds_poll >>>> 3.77 3.83 0.24 8506993 0.00 >>0.00 slirp_pollfds_fill >>>> 3.14 4.03 0.20 >> 76396706 0.00 0.00 timerlist_deadline_ns >>>> 2.67 4.20 0.17 25465512 >>0.00 0.00 timerlistgroup_deadline_ns >>>> 2.51 4.36 0.16 __umoddi3 >>>> >>2.35 4.51 0.15 8506948 0.00 0.00 main_loop_wait >>>> 2.20 4.65 0.14 >>68485894 0.00 0.00 qemu_clock_get_ns >>>> >> 2.04 4.78 0.13 8507043 0.00 0.00 qemu_clock_run_all_timers >>>> 1.88 >>4.90 0.12 103165614 0.00 0.00 qemu_mutex_lock >>>> 1.88 5.02 0.12 >>25664993 0.00 0.00 timerlist_run_timers >>>> >>>> Many functions related >>with aio and timerlist are too frequently as >> you have expected. >>>> >>>> According to the call graph (from 1714 >>lines), >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> >>42 aio_poll [94] >>>> 8506969 main_loop_wait [8] >>>> 0.36 0.23 >>8458958/33329095 aio_ctx_check [4] >>>> 0.36 0.23 >> 8499543/33329095 aio_ctx_prepare [3] >>>> [16] 2.7 0.17 0.00 25465512 >>timerlistgroup_deadline_ns > 76396706 timerlist_deadline_ns > >>----------------------------------------------- >>>> main_loop_wait(), >>aio_ctx_check() and aio_ctx_prepare() call >> timerlistgroup_deadline_ns() almouse evenly. >>>> >>>> aio_ctx_check() >>and aio_ctx_prepare() are used for GSourceFuncs and we can reasonably >>suspect the aio implementation for win32. >>>> >>>> main_loop_wait() >>also calls excessively >> timerlistgroup_deadline_ns(). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have tested it in >>my ubuntu box. I run the emulator until I show the menu screen and then >>shutdown. It takes about 20 seconds. Just compare the number of calls. >>(25465512 per 70 seconds vs 78696 per 20 >> seconds ) >>>> >>>> Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. >>>> % >>cumulative self self total >>>> time seconds seconds calls ms/call >>ms/call name >>>> 9.09 0.04 0.04 642 0.06 0.08 vga_update_display >>>> >>6.82 0.07 0.03 32540 0.00 0.00 main_loop_wait >>>> >> 6.82 0.10 0.03 30701 0.00 0.00 phys_page_set_level >>>> 4.55 0.12 0.02 >>5883501 0.00 0.00 address_space_translate_in >>>> 4.55 0.14 0.02 5883382 >>0.00 0.00 address_space_translate >>>> 4.55 0.16 0.02 189067 0.00 0.00 >>cpu_get_clock_locked >>>> 4.55 0.18 0.02 >> 831 0.02 0.02 qcow2_check_metadata_overl >>>> 4.55 0.20 0.02 >>aio_ctx_prepare >>>> 2.27 0.21 0.01 5952765 0.00 0.00 phys_page_find >>>>>> 2.27 0.22 0.01 5835718 0.00 0.00 qemu_get_ram_block >>>> 2.27 0.23 >>>>>>0.01 1177955 0.00 0.00 qemu_mutex_lock >>>> ... >>>> >>>>>> 0.00 0.44 0.00 236252 0.00 0.00 timerlist_deadline_ns >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> 0.00 >>>>>>>>>>0.00 42/78696 aio_poll [70] >>>> 0.00 0.00 19116/78696 >>>>>>>>>>aio_ctx_check [34] >>>> 0.00 0.00 26975/78696 >> aio_ctx_prepare [21] >>>> 0.00 0.00 32563/78696 main_loop_wait [5] >>>> >>[60] 2.1 0.00 0.01 78696 timerlistgroup_deadline_ns [60] >>>> 0.00 0.01 >>236252/236252 timerlist_deadline_ns [59] >>>> >>----------------------------------------------- >>>> ... >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> In summary, the aio implementation for win32 may be the >>>>>>reason and, however, I still don't know exactly. I need to think >>>>>>about the result more and check the aio implementation. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>> >>>>>> *Sender* : 박상호수석/파트장/Core파트/에스코어 >>>> >>>> *Date* : 2014-04-09 >>>>>>16:46 (GMT+09:00) >>>> >>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen >>>>>>emulator on windows performance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, Seokyeon >>>>>>Hwang >>>> >>>> I’m afraid that the >> same performance degradation can happen in qemu 2.0 that will be >>released at Apr. 10. (http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/2.0) >>>> >>>> I >>think that we need to dig more this issue until next week. J >>>> >>>> >>*From:*SeokYeon Hwang >> [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2014 >>3:11 PM >>>> *To:* Stanislav Vorobiov; [email protected]; 박상호 >>>> >>*Subject:* Re: Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows >>performance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> @ stanislav, >>>>>> >>>> I see. You didn't want to apply W/A patch. >>>> >>>> And... >>>>>>yes, we should study win32-aio.c in more detail. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>I didn't test 3.12 kernel on Windows host yet. I should try it. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> @ sangho and all, >>>> >>>> How >> about your opinion? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------- *Original >>Message* ------- >>>> >>>> *Sender*: Stanislav Vorobiov> Expert >>Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>> >>>> *Date*: 2014-04-08 19:09 >>(GMT+09:00) >>>> >>>> *Title*: Re: [Dev] >> [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Hi, Seokyeon >>>> >>>>> Yesterday, I looked up the related code and >>>>>>tested it. >>>>> But, I am not quite sure about the changed timer >>>>>>code in QEMU. >>>>> >>>>> the problem is >> disappeared by Stanislav's patch. However, I think adding dummy >>notifier from timerlist registration is better than checking use_icount >>according to the current changed timer logic. I'm not 100% sure about >>this. >>>> I've tried the patch, it looks like >> the fix is almost the same as mine in terms of performance, i.e. it >>makes things better, but not as good as in 1.6. And the difference >>>> >>is big, with 1.6 performance was much better. IMHO we didn't fix the >>problem yet and this patch or mine shouldn't >> be applied. I'll try to look at this problem again taking >>>> this >>patch into account, I really hope that we'll find the right solution for >>this... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If anyone knows about the following, >>please answer me. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Main-loop >> registers aio_notify to use own timers. Why do 6 timerlist, which are >>created by init_clocks() function in CPU thread and IO thread, >>eventually call aio_notify? aio_notify is called because there is no >>notifier registration explicitly. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The >> same above timer logic is performed in linux and Windows, but it is >>slow in Windows. What is the major cause of performance decline in >>Windows? >>>> It might be that aio logic broke for windows, i.e. misuse >>of IoCompletion api or something, m.b. we should >> study win32-aio.c in more detail ? >>>> >>>> Also, I noticed one more >>thing, it may be related to this problem. mobile image doesn't boot with >>kernel 3.12 at all on windows, it hangs somewhere in >>>> network >>initialization (not 100% sure), that place >> also causes a little delay with 3.4 kernel, but with 3.12 it never gets >>pass it. I've tried this both without and >>>> with this patch. Also, >>Tizen IVI doesn't have this problem, it boots fine. >>>> >>>> On >>04/08/2014 11:19 AM, SeokYeon Hwang wrote: >>>>> >> Sorry, my attachment was missing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>*Sender* : 황석연 수석보/VM파트/에스코어 >>>>> >>>>> *Date* : 2014-04-08 16:11 >>>>>>>(GMT+09:00) >>>>> >>>>> *Title* : Re: >> [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Hi, everyone. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry for late reply. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Yesterday, I looked up the related code and tested it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, I am not quite sure about the >> changed timer code in QEMU. >>>>> >>>>> the problem is disappeared by >>Stanislav's patch. However, I think adding dummy notifier from timerlist >>registration is better than checking use_icount according to the current >>changed timer logic. I'm not 100% sure >> about this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If anyone knows about the following, >>please answer me. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Main-loop registers aio_notify to use >>own timers. Why do 6 timerlist, which are created by init_clocks() >>function in CPU thread and IO thread, eventually >> call aio_notify? aio_notify is called because there is no notifier >>registration explicitly. >>>>> >>>>> 2. The same above timer logic is >>performed in linux and Windows, but it is slow in Windows. What is the >>major cause of performance decline in Windows? >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll apply Stanislav's patch or the "dummy_notifier >>>>>>>patch" attached as workaround If I cannot figure it out until this >>>>>>>week. >>>>> If you have any comment about this, please let me know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>==================================================================== >>>>>>>======================== >>>>> >>>>> *Sender*: Seokyeon Hwang> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> *Date*: 2014-03-14 10:35 (GMT+09:00) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>*Title*: Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on >> windows performance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Great job, thanks. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I should test with "vanilla QEMU 1.6" on windows. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> I think it could be our mis-use QEMU timer API, or some >>>>>>>>>>>>other mistake on tizen specific devices. >>>>> >>>>>>> I will test it until next week. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------- >>>>>>>*Original Message* ------- >>>>> >>>>> *Sender*: Stanislav >>>>>>>Vorobiov> Expert Engineer/SRR-Tizen S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>*Date*: 2014-03-14 02:22 (GMT+09:00) >>>>> >>>>> *Title*: >> Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was able to make some progress on this issue, it >>>>>>>looks like this commit: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>b1bbfe72ec1ebf302d97f886cc646466c0abd679 aio / timers: On timer >>>>>>>modification, >> qemu_notify or aio_notify >>>>> >>>>> causes the degradation, I'm >>attaching the patch that reverts changes in this commit. Although >>emulator is >>>>> performing better with this patch, it's still not as >>good as it was with qemu 1.6. Also, this patch >>>>> >> is a dirty hack of course, it reverts generic code that works fine on >>linux and mac os x, but the problem is on windows >>>>> only. >>>>> >>>>>>> Any comments are welcome... >>>>> >>>>> On 03/12/2014 02:59 PM, >>>>>>>Stanislav Vorobiov wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just for information, Intel VTune Amplifier XE for windows works >>>>>>>>great with MinGW, it's capable of gathering >>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>profiles and symbol naming is ok, you don't even need to build >>>>>>>>qemu with some special options. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm using it >> now to find the cause of this performance degradation, m.b. someone >>else will find it useful as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> On >>01/16/2014 06:38 AM, 황석연wrote: >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @ stanislav >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> You are right. The performance profiling in Windows is very hard job. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually I prefer using profiling tool to analysing >>>>>>>>>sources, trial and error, in Windows - MinGW. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> @ all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If anyone knows >> good profiling tool in Windows - MinGW, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us >>know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovLeading >> Engineer/SRR-Mobile S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-15 >>14:54 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] >>Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>Hi, Syeon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but >> unfortunately it's hard to say where exactly is that problem. It would >>be great to do some profiling, but on MinGW it seems >>>>>>> not an easy >>task. In MinGW there're no things such as valgrind or perf and all >>existing windows profiling tools require >> .pdb database, >>>>>>> which means they can only profile executables >>built by visual studio. After some struggling I've managed to run qemu >>with gprof, which >>>>>>> gave me output with correct symbol naming, but >>unfortunately the output is still not >> usefull, m.b. it's because gprof is known to not >>>>>>> work correctly >>with multithreaded applications. Do you have suggestions how can we >>profile qemu on windows ? Are there any good tools >>>>>>> you know >>about ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01/15/2014 08:35 AM, >> SeokYeon Hwang wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can reproduce performance degradation on Windows. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We should figure out why. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thinks it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>could be related with timer logic changes on 1.7.0. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*Sender* : Stanislav VorobiovLeading Engineer/SRR-Mobile >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-13 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>14:52 >> (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Title* : Re: [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen >>emulator on windows performance >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>Syeon >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not necessarily related to HAXM, the thing >>is slowdown is significant, e.g. home >> screen renders about >>>>>>>> 5 times longer than before, home screen >>scrolling is like 2-3 fps. Other graphics apps are also slow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 01/13/2014 06:19 AM, 황석연wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, stanislav, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> According to my memory, there is no significant changes related with >>HAXM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But I will re-check about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Sender* : Stanislav >> VorobiovLeading Engineer/SRR-Mobile S/W Group/삼성전자 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>*Date* : 2014-01-10 22:23 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Title* : Re: >>[Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Tizen emulator on windows performance >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also, >> this happens both with maru VGA and VIGS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On >>01/10/2014 01:06 PM, Stanislav Vorobiov wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, all >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> After updating tizen branch today (with 1.7.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>merge) I've noticed performance degradation on windows 7 >> 64-bit with HAXM-enabled, >>>>>>>>>> is this some known issue ? Were >>there significant changes to HAXM in 1.7.0 merge ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>On 01/08/2014 07:59 AM, 황석연wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A QEMU >> 1.7.0 stable version has been merged into tizen branch. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ------- *Original Message* ------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Sender* : 황석연책임/VM파트/에스코 >> 어 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Date* : 2014-01-03 13:16 (GMT+09:00) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Title* : [Dev] [SDK/Emulator] Merge qemu >>>>>>>>>>>>>stable-1.7.0 on tizen emulator >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We has been tested "Tizen Emulator" with tizen_qemu_1.7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>branch, and it works well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So we >>>>>>>>>>>>>planned to merge it to tizen branch on next Tuesday - 7, Jan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have any opinion, please let me know. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *And please subscribe >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Dev" mailing list on "tizen.org".* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>*https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I don't add any other recipients after this mail.* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> @ John, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please forward this mail to IVI maintainer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Dev mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Dev >>>>>>>>>>>>>mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 박상호 올림 >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Sangho Park (Ph.D) >>>> >>>> Principal Engineer, >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Core Part, OS Lab, >>>> >>>> S-Core >>>> >>>> Tel) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>+82-70-7125-5039 >>>> >>>> Mobile) +82-10-2546-9871 >>>>>> >>>> E-mail) [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 박상호 올림 >>> >>> >>> >>> Sangho Park (Ph.D) >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Principal Engineer, >>> >>> Core Part, OS Lab, >>> >>> S-Core >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Tel) +82-70-7125-5039 >>> >>> Mobile) >> +82-10-2546-9871 >>> >>> E-mail) [email protected] >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 박상호 올림 >> >> >> >> Sangho Park >>>>>(Ph.D) >> >> Principal Engineer, >> >> Core Part, OS Lab, >> >> >>>>>S-Core >> >> Tel) +82-70-7125-5039 >> >> Mobile) >> +82-10-2546-9871 >> >> E-mail) [email protected] >> >> >> >> >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing >>>>list > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
