From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:52:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [PATCH] [3/4] Add userpace tlb access Message-Id: <1201819965.16049.90.camel@basalt> List-Id: References: <12016963202210-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <12016963202210-git-send-email-ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 09:32 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > > > Didn't we agree not to export the shadow TLB? > > The last agreement I found was to export shadow TLB read only which is what I have here. > But it's easy to remove if needed ;-) > So do you think it is really completely useless e.g. on a tlb dump ? If yes we can remove it, but > if it can give us even a small benefit we should keep the read only access. OK, we can keep it. We will need custom debug tool code to understand any TLB dump anyways. > >> +struct kvm_tlbe { > >> + __u32 index; > >> + union { > >> + struct tlbe tlbe_ppc440; > >> + /* Fix the size of the union (hopefully) */ > >> + char padding[32]; > >> + }; > >> +}; > > > > Are you sure 32 bytes will be large enough? I think Freescale uses a ton > > of MAS registers for TLB insertion. > > Well I thought it should be enough but we can use 64bit just to be safer. I guess you mean 64 bytes. Wei, how many bytes do you think are needed to save current and future TLB entries? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-ppc-devel mailing list kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-ppc-devel