-Original Message-
From: Hollis Blanchard [mailto:hollis_blanch...@mentor.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 12:07 AM
To: Liu Yu-B13201
Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org; kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org; ag...@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm/e500v2: Remove shadow tlb
On 09/08/2010 02
On 09/09/2010 04:16 AM, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Yes, it's hard to resume TLB0. We only resume TLB1 in previous code.
But TLB1 is even more smaller (13 free entries) than 440,
So that it still has little possibility to get hit.
thus the resumption is useless.
The only reason hits are unlikely in
On 09.09.2010, at 20:13, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On 09/09/2010 04:16 AM, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Yes, it's hard to resume TLB0. We only resume TLB1 in previous code.
But TLB1 is even more smaller (13 free entries) than 440,
So that it still has little possibility to get hit.
thus the
On 09/09/2010 04:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.09.2010, at 20:13, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On 09/09/2010 04:16 AM, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Yes, it's hard to resume TLB0. We only resume TLB1 in previous code.
But TLB1 is even more smaller (13 free entries) than 440,
So that it still
On 10.09.2010, at 01:39, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On 09/09/2010 04:26 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 09.09.2010, at 20:13, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On 09/09/2010 04:16 AM, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
Yes, it's hard to resume TLB0. We only resume TLB1 in previous code.
But TLB1 is even more
It is unnecessary to keep shadow tlb.
first, shadow tlb keep fixed value in shadow, which make things unflexible.
second, remove shadow tlb can save a lot memory.
This patch remove shadow tlb and caculate the shadow tlb entry value
before we write it to hardware.
Also we use new struct tlbe_ref
On 09/08/2010 02:40 AM, Liu Yu wrote:
It is unnecessary to keep shadow tlb.
first, shadow tlb keep fixed value in shadow, which make things unflexible.
second, remove shadow tlb can save a lot memory.
This patch remove shadow tlb and caculate the shadow tlb entry value
before we write it to
