On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:28 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote: > > > > 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?
I would definitely prefer using the index as a return value, rather than saving to vcpu->arch. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center -- 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