Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Kazu wrote:
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:48 PM Lonnie Mendez wrote:
Kazu wrote:
If you set /proc/sys/dev/rtc/max-user-freq to 1024 and disable cpuspeed
service that is related to SpeedStep/PowerNow! on a host OS, the clock in
guest OS works fine.
I checked it on i686/x86_64 Linux host.
Mind saying how you checked this? I'm on a pentium-III mobile
processor and the only way I've seen so far to make qemu + rdtsc behave
100% is by disabling ACPI (boot with -noacpi). If I add a simple printf
to cpu_calibrate_ticks it doesn't seem fixed to me:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 1126809000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 17308857
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 103710852
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 15292604
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 96695295
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 1126761234
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 1126762522
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-stuff $ qemu -localtime -hda winxp.img -no-acpi
-kernel-kqemu -soundhw es1370
ticks_per_sec set as 49791263
The first entry is with the patch attached called
'ticks_from_proc.patch' applied (I've been using this for almost a
year). It sets the value ticks_per_sec, which happens to be used by a
lot of qemu's hardware emulation, using information in /proc/cpuinfo.
This doesn't fix the time issue as rdtsc is still used every time a
SIGALRM signal occurs for timing, but at least the guest's emulated
hardware runs to speed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /prog/qemu-cvs/qemu-acpi/qemu $ find . -type f -exec fgrep
-l 'ticks_per_sec' {} \;
./audio/audio.c
./audio/noaudio.c
./audio/wavaudio.c
./monitor.c
./vl.c
./vl.h
./hw/acpi.c
./hw/adlib.c
./hw/arm_timer.c
./hw/cuda.c
./hw/fdc.c
./hw/i8254.c
./hw/i8259.c
./hw/ide.c
./hw/mc146818rtc.c
./hw/mips_r4k.c
./hw/ppc.c
./hw/sb16.c
./hw/sh7750.c
./hw/slavio_timer.c
./hw/usb-uhci.c
The second patch adds the printf statement so you can see this for
yourself.
Here is values of ticks_per_sec on Athlon 64 3000+ .
i686 host:
1790803394
1790784284
1790774719
1790798849
1790814225
x86_64 host:
1790764763
1790815837
1790816089
1790803590
1790771017
If I changed usleep(50 * 1000) to ulseep(500 * 1000) in vl.c, it improves.
When cpuspeed service is working in x86_64 host, it becomes:
994896127
994896984
994895713
994897215
994896447
It is because CPU is changed from 1.8GHz to 1GHz. TSC is changed dynamically
while QEMU is working.
I think your results are from mobile Pentium III.
I don't know much but a power management of mobile Pentium III works without
software?
I attached a patch that I modifed from your patch. It can be applied by
patch -p0. I checked it works for Athlon 64 with cpuspeed service (Power
Now!). ticks_per_sec changed dynamically but a clock of win2k guest on
x86_64 Linux host works fine.
If your guest OS is Linux, it is necessary to set clock=pit at guest OS'es
startup. TSC may change.
I hope it works for SpeedStep.
I can't test i686 Linux host because ACPI and cpuspeed doesn't work on my
PC.
I think it is better to detect CPU change signal and calibrate
ticks_per_sec.
I think the proper solution is to calibrate the TSC regularily and to
update the qemu clock accordingly. Of course the patch to read
/proc/cpuinfo is still interesting to have a consistant ticks_per_sec.
Fabrice.
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:55 PM Christian MICHON wrote: how can we do the same if the host is winXP ? Today, on linux guests, 2.4.x kernel boot faster than 2.6.x kernel inside qemu (unless using clock=pit on 2.6.x). 2 days ago, when I tried to setup Solaris x86 10 guest inside winXP host, I gave up since the timing engine inside the guest seems slow. I would really like to know how to solve this on XP hosts. RTC is not used on Win host. SpeedStep/PowerNow! is disabled by changing miminal power management to other items at Control Panel-Power Option-Power Management Setting. I don't think it is necessary to set it if your PC is ACPI. Set it if the clock of win2k guest is faster than the real time while IE is running. It is normal that 2.4 kernel boots faster than 2.6 kernel, isn't it? I don't know why Solaris x86 10 doesn't work. Regards, Kazu ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
On 5/16/06, Kazu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is normal that 2.4 kernel boots faster than 2.6 kernel, isn't it? I don't know why Solaris x86 10 doesn't work. solaris works, it's just painfully slow. lots of time is wasted in ide-probing inside 2.6.x, because of the way time is measured in the qemu guest. Maybe recompiling 2.6.x guest kernel, telling it which internal timer to use would be better. Does anyone know how to do this or tried it already? -- Christian ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Kazu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:55 PM Christian MICHON wrote: how can we do the same if the host is winXP ? Today, on linux guests, 2.4.x kernel boot faster than 2.6.x kernel inside qemu (unless using clock=pit on 2.6.x). 2 days ago, when I tried to setup Solaris x86 10 guest inside winXP host, I gave up since the timing engine inside the guest seems slow. I would really like to know how to solve this on XP hosts. RTC is not used on Win host. SpeedStep/PowerNow! is disabled by changing miminal power management to other items at Control Panel-Power Option-Power Management Setting. I don't think it is necessary to set it if your PC is ACPI. Set it if the clock of win2k guest is faster than the real time while IE is running. It is normal that 2.4 kernel boots faster than 2.6 kernel, isn't it? I don't know why Solaris x86 10 doesn't work. add ,atapi-cd-dma-enabled=0 to the boot line when installing. The QEMU IDE controller doesn't implement DMA (or dma correctly). If you don't give a Solaris VM enough memory, the installer (java) will coredump, and it appears that it's running out of memory. Once you've got Solaris 10 X86 installed, you'll need to get the Disk Update from http://tools.de/solaris/itu/DU.zip. Normally you could do an Install Time Update to add this driver disk, but Qemu doesn't implement a floppy in ACPI (I'm testing patches now to see if that fixes the problem), and some folks are working on OpenSolaris to fix the enumeration of the floppy on the emulated ISA bus (or when -no-acpi is called). So the trick to getting the NIC driver into Solaris 10x86 is to call QEMU with the DU.img as hdd. Then once Solaris is booted, you do the following: mount -F pcfs /dev/dsk/c1d1p0:c /mnt cd /mnt/DU/210/i86pc/Product cp ni.Z /var/tmp uncompress ni.Z cpio -idvm ni pkgadd -d . CSWni At this point, it's probably easier just to do a sys-unconfig so that Solaris 10/x86 with redo it's networking for DHCP. (tun/tap support is not in qemu for Solaris yet) HTH, Ben ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
[Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Hello, As I have reported before, it seems that on my host linux system kqemu does not work with guest win98se. Is there any benchmark that I could run in the guest, with and without kqemu, to check if this is so objectively? (Ideally I'd like two benchmarks - 16-bit and 32-bit code). -- Yours, Mikhail Ramendik ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Try SiSoftware Sandra I don't think it will test 16-bit code but whatever. For 16-bit code you can try the Norton Utilities System Information, not so complete benchmarking but, 16-bit. Natalia El 15/05/2006, a las 20:03, Mikhail Ramendik escribió: Hello, As I have reported before, it seems that on my host linux system kqemu does not work with guest win98se. Is there any benchmark that I could run in the guest, with and without kqemu, to check if this is so objectively? (Ideally I'd like two benchmarks - 16-bit and 32-bit code). -- Yours, Mikhail Ramendik ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
On Mon, 15 May 2006 20:03:00 +0200, Mikhail Ramendik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, As I have reported before, it seems that on my host linux system kqemu does not work with guest win98se. Is there any benchmark that I could run in the guest, with and without kqemu, to check if this is so objectively? (Ideally I'd like two benchmarks - 16-bit and 32-bit code). Hi! An ANSI-C benchmark program: http://www.hit.bme.hu/anonftp/pongor/benchmar/bm-ansi.c It should be compiled by full optimization. and some results: http://www.hit.bme.hu/anonftp/pongor/benchmar/bm-times.all I'm not sure whether is it really objective. Tests only the processor's speed (not I/O). It was written, and maintained by one of my teachers, Gyorgy Pongor, until he died 2 or 3 years ago. By that time, he collected many result files (even PDP-11 and VAX machines!), that is the second link above. You can try a 16 bit compiler also (e.g. ancient Borland compiler). Miklos Gyozo p.s. my results: on host: = Results of bench marks V.6.4, Pongor, György = Type of machine : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz, 3006.943, 1024 KB Type of compiler : gcc version 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-7), gcc -O3 bm-ansi.c -o nyosO3 -lm Name of this result file : nyosO3.bm Length of integer = 32 bits Length of double mantissa = 64 bits Length of address = 32 bits Precision of time estimation = 1% Clock resolution = 100.000 clocks/sec == Minimal execution time of one test: 2 sec Test 1: Direct select. sort 1000 real numbers - Time=0.00193 sec Test 2: Discrete Fourier Transform of 128 reals - Time=0.00258 sec Test 3: Find first 1000 primes - Time=0.00742 sec Test 4: Sieve of Eratosthenes with 2000 numbers - Time= 2.01e-05 sec Test 5: FFT of 1024 complex numbers - Time= 7.32e-05 sec Test 6: Invert a matrix of 50 * 50 reals- Time= 0.000789 sec Test 7: Calculate Binom(18,7) - Time= 0.000518 sec Average performance : 3207.6 MicroVAX II MIPS - Summary of results - Machine : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz, 3006.943, 1024 KB Compiler : gcc version 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-7), gcc -O3 bm-ansi.c -o nyosO3 -lm |fpp? | 32 6432 ? |1.929e-032.578e-037.422e-03 2.012e-057.324e-057.886e-045.176e-04 | 3207.615 | the same binary on qemu (0.7.2): = Results of bench marks V.6.4, Pongor, György = Type of machine : Pentium II (Klamath) QEMU, 3009.347, 128 KB Type of compiler : gcc the same Name of this result file : nyosO3qemu.bm Length of integer = 32 bits Length of double mantissa = 64 bits Length of address = 32 bits Precision of time estimation = 1% Clock resolution = 100.000 clocks/sec == Minimal execution time of one test: 2 sec Test 1: Direct select. sort 1000 real numbers - Time=0.00219 sec Test 2: Discrete Fourier Transform of 128 reals - Time=0.00289 sec Test 3: Find first 1000 primes - Time= 0.0084 sec Test 4: Sieve of Eratosthenes with 2000 numbers - Time= 4.14e-05 sec Test 5: FFT of 1024 complex numbers - Time= 0.000103 sec Test 6: Invert a matrix of 50 * 50 reals- Time= 0.000947 sec Test 7: Calculate Binom(18,7) - Time= 0.000594 sec Average performance : 2541.7 MicroVAX II MIPS - Summary of results - Machine : Pentium II (Klamath) QEMU, 3009.347, 128 KB Compiler : gcc ugyanugy |fpp? | 32 6432 ? |2.188e-032.891e-038.398e-03 4.141e-051.031e-049.473e-045.938e-04 | 2541.747 | ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
Re: [Qemu-devel] objective benchmark?
Mikhail Ramendik wrote: Hello, As I have reported before, it seems that on my host linux system kqemu does not work with guest win98se. Is there any benchmark that I could run in the guest, with and without kqemu, to check if this is so objectively? (Ideally I'd like two benchmarks - 16-bit and 32-bit code). The vast majority of guest benchmarking programs are going to give you invalid results. The clock within QEMU (rdtsc and wall clock) are not very reliable and this is going to skew the results. I suggest a benchmark that treats the guest as a server (something like specweb where the timing or thoroughput measurement is done on the host where time is reliable). Regards, Anthony Liguori ___ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
