[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Compiling takes longer with gcc-4.9.2

From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] Compiling takes longer with gcc-4.9.2
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 12:26:07 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0

On 2016-01-18 02:44, Greg Chicares wrote:
> On 2016-01-17 18:36, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 17:51:45 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
>> GC> The bottleneck might even be the preprocessor.
>>  So the IO layer then? It looks plausible but this would just mean that KVM
>> doesn't do its job well.
> 'virtio' drivers are provided for most popular OS's. But there is none
> for msw-xp; or, properly speaking, IIRC, one exists, but it does nothing,
> and its author recommends against using it.

|>>>>> I've done some benchmarking with the drivers on Windows XP SP3 32bit,
|>>>>> but it seems like using the VirtIO drivers are slower than the IDE
|>>>>> drivers in
|>>>>> (almost) all cases. Perhaps I've missed something or does the driver
|>>>>> still
|>>>>> need optimization?
|>> Windows XP 32-bit virtio block driver was created from our mainline code
|>> almost for fun.
|>> Not like our mainline code, which is STORPORT oriented, it is a SCSIPORT
|>> (!!!!) mini-port driver.
|>> SCSIPORT has never been known as I/O optimized storage stack.
|>> SCSIPORT architecture is almost dead officially.
|>> Windows XP 32-bit has no support for STORPORT or virtual storage stack.
|> Ok, in that case, wouldn't it be better simply not to build the XP driver and
|> instead put a note somewhere (in the wiki?), saying that it doesn't make
|> sense to use VirtIO on XP due to these reasons?
|I have no idea what was the reason for building and announcing XP 32bit

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]