On 29/10/2013 3:20 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Sebastian Macke wrote:
On 29/10/2013 2:01 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Sebastian Macke
wrote:
At the moment there are two TLBs. The OpenRISC TLB followed
by the QEMU's own TLB.
At the end
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Sebastian Macke wrote:
> On 29/10/2013 2:01 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Sebastian Macke
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> At the moment there are two TLBs. The OpenRISC TLB followed
>>> by the QEMU's own TLB.
>>> At the end of the TLB miss hand
On 29/10/2013 2:01 PM, Max Filippov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Sebastian Macke wrote:
At the moment there are two TLBs. The OpenRISC TLB followed
by the QEMU's own TLB.
At the end of the TLB miss handler a tlb_flush of QEMUs TLB
is executed which is exactly what we want to avoid.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Sebastian Macke wrote:
> At the moment there are two TLBs. The OpenRISC TLB followed
> by the QEMU's own TLB.
> At the end of the TLB miss handler a tlb_flush of QEMUs TLB
> is executed which is exactly what we want to avoid.
> As long as there is no context switc
At the moment there are two TLBs. The OpenRISC TLB followed
by the QEMU's own TLB.
At the end of the TLB miss handler a tlb_flush of QEMUs TLB
is executed which is exactly what we want to avoid.
As long as there is no context switch we don't have to flush the TLB.
There are two options:
1. If l.rf
