kqemu runs 2x faster on i386 than amd64!?

[Juergen Lock]

In article <539c60b90810301129x58a6e5des56c062ecbb262663 at mail.gmail.com> you write:
>Guess I should've mentioned the target is 32-bit win2k...
>
>On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Steve Franks <stevefranks at ieee.org> wrote:
>> I'm not comparing apples-to-apples exactly, but both my disks are in
>> the same system, both are running 7-stable from within the last few
>> months, so it's pretty close.  Also, the i386 is a direct replacement
>> of the amd64 to fix this and other problems, so the software &
>> settings set is pretty identical also...
>>
>> kqemu crawls when I boot amd64 (and I notice the processor is always
>> over 50%), and it's reasonalbly usable on i386 (also, the processor is
>> often in the 30% range, instead of 60%).
>>
>> Steve

Hi!

 Are you sure kqemu is even used? (in the monitor do: info kqemu)

 Quoting ports/emulators/qemu/pkg-message:

- also remember that on amd64 you need to run the amd64 (x86_64) system
emulation if you want to use kqemu, i.e. run qemu-system-x86_64 instead of
qemu (the latter only emulates a 32 bit system.) [...]

 Note however that this is no longer true with the qemu-devel port, so
if you are using that also the 32 bit `qemu' can use kqemu.

 And finally, for anyone wanting to test out more recent qemu svn
snapshots, you should check -emulation, I have just prepared another
experimental qemu-devel port update:
	http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2008-November/005526.html

 HTH,
	Juergen

PS: No I'm still not on -questions, so please Cc me if you want to make
sure I see followups.  (I was just testing out accessing it via gmane and
looked for recent posts about qemu...)