On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:43:02 +0100
Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 04.02.2011, at 23:33, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:19:06 +0100
> > Alexander Graf wrote:
> >
> >> Makes sense. So we basically need an ioctl that tells KVM the MMU type and
> >> TLB size. Remember, the userspace too
> -Original Message-
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 12:52 PM
> To: Alexander Graf
> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; Wood Scott-B07421; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; qemu-de...@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: New API for PPC for vcpu mmu access
>
>
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:49:51 +0100
Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 07.02.2011, at 17:40, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
> > Suggested change to this would be to have Qemu set tlb_type as
> > an _input_ argument. If KVM supports it, that type gets used,
> > else an error is returned.This would
> -Original Message-
> From: kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ppc-ow...@vger.kernel.org]
> On Behalf Of Avi Kivity
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 11:14 AM
> To: Alexander Graf
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Yoder Stuart-B08248; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; qemu-d
On 02/03/2011 11:19 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> I have no idea what things will look like 10 years down the road, but
> currently e500mc has 576 entries (512 TLB0, 64 TLB1).
That sums up to 64 * 576 bytes, which is 36kb. Ouch. Certainly nothing we want
to transfer every time qemu feels like
> > A fixed array does mean you wouldn't have to worry about whether qemu
> > supports the more advanced struct format if fields are added -- you
> > can just unconditionally write it, as long as it's backwards
> > compatible. Unless you hit the limit of the pre-determined array
> > size, that is
On 07.02.2011, at 17:40, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
>>> A fixed array does mean you wouldn't have to worry about whether qemu
>>> supports the more advanced struct format if fields are added -- you
>>> can just unconditionally write it, as long as it's backwards
>>> compatible. Unless you hit
On 04.02.2011, at 23:33, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:19:06 +0100
> Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> On 02.02.2011, at 23:08, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:33:41 +0100
>>> Alexander Graf wrote:
This seems to fine-grained. I'd prefer a list of all TLB entries to be
>>
