On 03/17/2010 06:06 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
On 03/16/2010 10:10 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
Yes, and is what tlb_protect_code() does and it's called from
tb_alloc_page() which is what's code when a TB is created.
Just a tangential note: a long time ago, I tried to disable self
modify
> On 03/16/2010 10:10 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >> Yes, and is what tlb_protect_code() does and it's called from
> >> tb_alloc_page() which is what's code when a TB is created.
> >
> > Just a tangential note: a long time ago, I tried to disable self
> > modifying code detection for Sparc. On most R
On 03/16/2010 10:10 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
Yes, and is what tlb_protect_code() does and it's called from
tb_alloc_page() which is what's code when a TB is created.
Just a tangential note: a long time ago, I tried to disable self
modifying code detection for Sparc. On most RISC architect
> Where does the translator need access to this original code? I was
> just thinking about this problem today, wondering how much overhead
> there is with this SMC page protection thing.
When an MMU fault occurs qemu re-translates the TB with additional annotations
to determine which guest instr
On 03/16/2010 01:10 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Just a tangential note: a long time ago, I tried to disable self
> modifying code detection for Sparc. On most RISC architectures, SMC
> needs explicit flushing so in theory we need not track code memory
> writes. However, during exceptions the translator
On 3/16/10, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 03/16/2010 08:57 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > On 03/16/2010 03:51 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/16/2010 08:29 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/16/2010 03:17 PM, Yoshiaki Tamura wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
