> > > Some of the refactoring you've done, like creating 
> completely separate
> > > kvmppc_handle_tlb_miss() functions, surprises me. For example, I'd
> > > expect the DTLB miss code to be refactored like this:
> > > 
> > >         case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DTLB_MISS:   
> > >           gtlbe = kvmppc_dtlb_search(vcpu, eaddr); <- CORE HOOK
> > >           if (!gtlbe) {
> > >                   /* The guest didn't have a mapping for it. */
> > >                   kvmppc_queue_exception(vcpu, exit_nr);
> > >                   vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear;
> > >                   vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr;
> > >                   kvmppc_deliver_dtlb_miss(vcpu); <- CORE HOOK
> > >                   vcpu->stat.dtlb_real_miss_exits++;
> > >                   r = RESUME_GUEST;
> > >                   break;
> > >           }
> > >         
> > >           vcpu->arch.paddr_accessed = tlb_xlate(gtlbe, eaddr);
> > >           gfn = vcpu->arch.paddr_accessed >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > >         
> > >           if (kvm_is_visible_gfn(vcpu->kvm, gfn)) {
> > >                   kvmppc_mmu_map(vcpu, eaddr, gfn, gtlbe->tid,
> > >                                  gtlbe->word2); <- CORE HOOK
> > >                   vcpu->stat.dtlb_virt_miss_exits++;
> > >                   r = RESUME_GUEST;
> > >           } else
> > >                   r = kvmppc_emulate_mmio(run, vcpu);
> > >         
> > >           break;
> > > 
> > 
> > Hollis, I'm reconsiderring this place.
> > The problem is that e500 has 2 TLB, so I need to get the 
> tlb index and
> > entry index from kvmppc_dtlb_search
> > And if kvm_is_visible_gfn() returns nonzero, the two index 
> are needed to
> > manipulate TLB0 or TLB1.
> 
> OK, sounds reasonable. Feel free to change the prototypes of 
> these hooks
> to whatever you need, as long as it's clean and still lets me 
> implement
> 440.
> 
> For example, maybe something like this:
>         int kvmppc_dtlb_index(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 eaddr);
> 
> You could then encode the TLB index in the high bits of the return
> index. Alternatively, you could pass &tlb and &index, but I 
> think I like
> that less.
> 

I just wanted you to know this place has some dependent factors.
Never mind. I think I could use the your former suggestion. 
I could calculate the index by offset or save index in vcpu->arch.
What's your opinion?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to