On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:25, Idan Horowitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 14:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> >
> > But the code you are effectively removing is never executed
> > for the instructions where you're changing the access function.
> > If you're proposing this as a performance impro
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 14:32, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>
> But the code you are effectively removing is never executed
> for the instructions where you're changing the access function.
> If you're proposing this as a performance improvement, can
> you provide before-and-after benchmarks demonstratin
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 12:00, Idan Horowitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:42, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >
> >
> > But for all of these instructions the reginfo struct
> > sets ".access = PL1_W". The .access field is always
> > checked before the .accessfn, so for any of these instructions
> >
On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 at 00:40, Idan Horowitz wrote:
>
> The SCTLR_EL1.UCI bit only affects a subset of cache maintenance
> instructions as specified by the specification. Any other cache
> maintenance instructions must still be trapped from EL0.
Hi; thanks for this patch. Do you have a test case w
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 13:42, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
>
> But for all of these instructions the reginfo struct
> sets ".access = PL1_W". The .access field is always
> checked before the .accessfn, so for any of these instructions
> executed from EL0 I think we will always fail the .access
> check a
The SCTLR_EL1.UCI bit only affects a subset of cache maintenance
instructions as specified by the specification. Any other cache
maintenance instructions must still be trapped from EL0.
Signed-off-by: Idan Horowitz
---
target/arm/helper.c | 68 ++---
1 fil
