On 2 February 2014 19:39, Xin Tong wrote:
> what should i do here? i want to pass the ADDR_READ/addr_write into
> the macro. But i do not know how I can convert it into
> env->tlb_v_table[mmu_idx][vidx].ADDR_READ/env->tlb_v_table[mmu_idx][vidx].addr_write.
I told you what you were doing wrong. Ju
what should i do here? i want to pass the ADDR_READ/addr_write into
the macro. But i do not know how I can convert it into
env->tlb_v_table[mmu_idx][vidx].ADDR_READ/env->tlb_v_table[mmu_idx][vidx].addr_write.
Thanks a lot,
Xin
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 February
On 2 February 2014 19:01, Xin Tong wrote:
> I am getting some compilation errors while stringnifying the
> ADDR_READ, addr_write.
>
> function helper_be_ldq_cmmu
>
> if (!VICTIM_TLB_HIT(ADDR_READ)) {
>
>
> macro
>
> #define VICTIM_TLB_HIT(ACCESS_TYPE)
>
I am getting some compilation errors while stringnifying the
ADDR_READ, addr_write.
function helper_be_ldq_cmmu
if (!VICTIM_TLB_HIT(ADDR_READ)) {
macro
#define VICTIM_TLB_HIT(ACCESS_TYPE) \
({
On 2 February 2014 18:27, Xin Tong wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> Statement expressions are supported by both gcc and clang,
>> which is the set of compilers we care about.
>
> Ok got it. would moving vtlb_idx inside the macro break the C89 rule
> of "No Vari
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 2 February 2014 15:15, Xin Tong wrote:
>> Hi Peter
>>
>> Thank you for your reviews , i have 2 questions.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Peter Maydell
>> wrote:
>>> On 28 January 2014 17:31, Xin Tong wrote:
+/* macro to che
On 2 February 2014 15:15, Xin Tong wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> Thank you for your reviews , i have 2 questions.
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Peter Maydell
> wrote:
>> On 28 January 2014 17:31, Xin Tong wrote:
>>> +/* macro to check the victim tlb */
>>> +#define HELPER_CHECK_VICTIM_TLB(ACCESS_
Hi Peter
Thank you for your reviews , i have 2 questions.
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 28 January 2014 17:31, Xin Tong wrote:
>> This patch adds a victim TLB to the QEMU system mode TLB.
>>
>> QEMU system mode page table walks are expensive. Taken by running QEMU
>>
On 28 January 2014 17:31, Xin Tong wrote:
> This patch adds a victim TLB to the QEMU system mode TLB.
>
> QEMU system mode page table walks are expensive. Taken by running QEMU
> qemu-system-x86_64 system mode on Intel PIN , a TLB miss and walking a
> 4-level page tables in guest Linux OS takes ~4
Il 01/02/2014 17:35, Xin Tong ha scritto:
Hi QEMU Community
This patch provides significant performance improvement (10.76% on
average) for QEMU system emulation. so I urge the someone in the QEMU
community to review this patch so that it has the hope of making into
the mainline. I understand th
Hi QEMU Community
This patch provides significant performance improvement (10.76% on
average) for QEMU system emulation. so I urge the someone in the QEMU
community to review this patch so that it has the hope of making into
the mainline. I understand that I have made mistakes in patch
submission
can someone please review this patch ?
Thank you,
Xin
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Xin Tong wrote:
> This patch adds a victim TLB to the QEMU system mode TLB.
>
> QEMU system mode page table walks are expensive. Taken by running QEMU
> qemu-system-x86_64 system mode on Intel PIN , a TLB mis
This patch adds a victim TLB to the QEMU system mode TLB.
QEMU system mode page table walks are expensive. Taken by running QEMU
qemu-system-x86_64 system mode on Intel PIN , a TLB miss and walking a
4-level page tables in guest Linux OS takes ~450 X86 instructions on
average.
QEMU system mode TL
13 matches
Mail list logo
