On 10/1/18 1:34 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:19:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote: >> If we are going to have an indirection then we can also drop the >> requirement to scale the TLB according to the number of MMU indexes we >> have to support. It's fairly wasteful when a bunch of them are almost >> never used unless you are running stuff that uses them. > > So with dynamic TLB sizing, what you're suggesting here is to resize > each MMU array independently (depending on their use rate) instead > of using a single "TLB size" for all MMU indexes. Am I understanding > your point correctly?
You cannot do that without flushing the TBs (and with out-of-line memory ops, the prologue as well) and regenerating. The TLB size is baked into the code. And we really don't have any extra registers free to vary that. r~
