Message ID | 20210205225650.1330794-1-richard.henderson@linaro.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | tcg patch queue | expand |
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 22:56, Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: > > The following changes since commit d0dddab40e472ba62b5f43f11cc7dba085dabe71: > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/mst/tags/for_upstream' into staging (2021-02-05 15:27:02 +0000) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > https://gitlab.com/rth7680/qemu.git tags/pull-tcg-20210205 > > for you to fetch changes up to fb6916dd6ca8bb4b42d44baba9c67ecaf2279577: > > accel: introduce AccelCPUClass extending CPUClass (2021-02-05 10:24:15 -1000) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > TCGCPUOps cleanups (claudio) > tcg/s390 compare fix (phil) > tcg/aarch64 rotli_vec fix > tcg/tci cleanups and fixes > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Applied, thanks. Please update the changelog at https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/6.0 for any user-visible changes. -- PMM
On 2/6/21 3:28 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 22:56, Richard Henderson > <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> The following changes since commit d0dddab40e472ba62b5f43f11cc7dba085dabe71: >> >> Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/mst/tags/for_upstream' into staging (2021-02-05 15:27:02 +0000) >> >> are available in the Git repository at: >> >> https://gitlab.com/rth7680/qemu.git tags/pull-tcg-20210205 >> >> for you to fetch changes up to fb6916dd6ca8bb4b42d44baba9c67ecaf2279577: >> >> accel: introduce AccelCPUClass extending CPUClass (2021-02-05 10:24:15 -1000) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> TCGCPUOps cleanups (claudio) >> tcg/s390 compare fix (phil) >> tcg/aarch64 rotli_vec fix >> tcg/tci cleanups and fixes >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Applied, thanks. > > Please update the changelog at https://wiki.qemu.org/ChangeLog/6.0 > for any user-visible changes. FYI I couldn't do incremental build on my TCI configured directory, but it works again after blowing away the whole directories. Not a big deal as there are mostly 3 TCI users and 1.5 testers. [I had scheduled to test this series during the week-end, no time during the week. Eventually I'd have reported that issue earlier]
On 2/6/21 11:38 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: > I am still searching what caused this detoriation. My first suspect was thread > local storage, but that wasn't it. Do you have any idea? No, but since it's 1/3 of a complete patch set, I don't care to investigate the intermediate result either. r~
Am 07.02.21 um 04:45 schrieb Richard Henderson: > On 2/6/21 11:38 AM, Stefan Weil wrote: >> I am still searching what caused this detoriation. My first suspect was thread >> local storage, but that wasn't it. Do you have any idea? > No, but since it's 1/3 of a complete patch set, I don't care to investigate the > intermediate result either. 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. Stefan
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. r~
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