All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Qemu-devel] Performance difference between QEMU 2.2.0 and 2.6.0
@ 2017-03-08 17:17 Wenwen Wang
  2017-03-08 20:42 ` Peter Maydell
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Wenwen Wang @ 2017-03-08 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: qemu-devel, mttcg; +Cc: Wenwen Wang

Hello all,

I just found that there is a significant performance difference between
QEMU version 2.2.0 and 2.6.0.

Here are the execution times of the benchmark 458.sjeng from SPEC CINT2006
with test workload using user only emulation from ARM guest to x86-32 host:

qemu-2.2.0: 29 seconds
qemu-2.6.0: 38 seconds

I am sure that the evaluation environments are the same in the two
executions.

I also evaluated other benchmarks, it seems that they also have some
performance differences.

Could anyone tell me what this difference comes from or give me any hint?

Many thanks in advance!

Wenwen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] Performance difference between QEMU 2.2.0 and 2.6.0
  2017-03-08 17:17 [Qemu-devel] Performance difference between QEMU 2.2.0 and 2.6.0 Wenwen Wang
@ 2017-03-08 20:42 ` Peter Maydell
  2017-03-08 23:29   ` Wenwen Wang
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2017-03-08 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wenwen Wang; +Cc: QEMU Developers, MTTCG Devel

On 8 March 2017 at 18:17, Wenwen Wang <wenwang@cs.umn.edu> wrote:
> I just found that there is a significant performance difference between QEMU
> version 2.2.0 and 2.6.0.
>
> Here are the execution times of the benchmark 458.sjeng from SPEC CINT2006
> with test workload using user only emulation from ARM guest to x86-32 host:
>
> qemu-2.2.0: 29 seconds
> qemu-2.6.0: 38 seconds

2.6.0 is now quite old -- it would be interesting to test this on
the current git master.

> Could anyone tell me what this difference comes from or give me any hint?

There are lots of changes between those two releases, and we don't
in general track performance at all, so a regression is not very
surprising to me. If you wanted to try to identify what caused it
you could try a git bisect.

thanks
-- PMM

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [Qemu-devel] Performance difference between QEMU 2.2.0 and 2.6.0
  2017-03-08 20:42 ` Peter Maydell
@ 2017-03-08 23:29   ` Wenwen Wang
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Wenwen Wang @ 2017-03-08 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Maydell; +Cc: QEMU Developers, MTTCG Devel, Wenwen Wang

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your suggestions! Will test some newer versions.

Best,
Wenwen

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
wrote:

> On 8 March 2017 at 18:17, Wenwen Wang <wenwang@cs.umn.edu> wrote:
> > I just found that there is a significant performance difference between
> QEMU
> > version 2.2.0 and 2.6.0.
> >
> > Here are the execution times of the benchmark 458.sjeng from SPEC
> CINT2006
> > with test workload using user only emulation from ARM guest to x86-32
> host:
> >
> > qemu-2.2.0: 29 seconds
> > qemu-2.6.0: 38 seconds
>
> 2.6.0 is now quite old -- it would be interesting to test this on
> the current git master.
>
> > Could anyone tell me what this difference comes from or give me any hint?
>
> There are lots of changes between those two releases, and we don't
> in general track performance at all, so a regression is not very
> surprising to me. If you wanted to try to identify what caused it
> you could try a git bisect.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2017-03-08 23:29 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-03-08 17:17 [Qemu-devel] Performance difference between QEMU 2.2.0 and 2.6.0 Wenwen Wang
2017-03-08 20:42 ` Peter Maydell
2017-03-08 23:29   ` Wenwen Wang

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.