On Tuesday 10 November 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I have tested it by removing all the block around tb_add_jump in
> cpu_exec.c. I have a speed loss of about 2.5x in the boot time of an
> x86_64 image.
I just tried it with qemu-system-x86_64, and with that I can observe a
noticable performance
On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 06:55:23PM +0200, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2009, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> > That indeed looks strange: fixing the TB chaining on ARM
> > made nbench i386 three times faster. Note the gain was
> > less for FP parts of the benchmark due to the use of
> >
On Monday 02 November 2009, Laurent Desnogues wrote:
> That indeed looks strange: fixing the TB chaining on ARM
> made nbench i386 three times faster. Note the gain was
> less for FP parts of the benchmark due to the use of
> helpers.
>
> out of curiosity could you post your tb_set_jmp_target1
>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:16:44PM +0200, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
>> On Thursday 22 October 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > Probably the second. Changing the instruction pointer in the helper
>> > instead of using the proper goto_tb TCG op preve
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:16:44PM +0200, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Probably the second. Changing the instruction pointer in the helper
> > instead of using the proper goto_tb TCG op prevents TB chaining, and
> > therefore as a huge impact on perfo
On Thursday 22 October 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Probably the second. Changing the instruction pointer in the helper
> instead of using the proper goto_tb TCG op prevents TB chaining, and
> therefore as a huge impact on performance.
>
> It's something not difficult to implement, and that I woul
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 07:17:18PM +0200, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> On Saturday 17 October 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 02:38:48PM +0200, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> > First of all a few general comments. Note that I know very few things
> > about S390/S390X, so I may have dumb com
On Saturday 17 October 2009, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 02:38:48PM +0200, Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> First of all a few general comments. Note that I know very few things
> about S390/S390X, so I may have dumb comments/questions. Also as the
> patch is very long, I probably have mis
