* [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes
@ 2015-09-24 12:57 Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-24 20:23 ` Scott Wood
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Laurentiu Tudor @ 2015-09-24 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm-ppc
Book-E MMUv2 present in e6500 cores supports
powers of 2K page sizes while older MMUv1 cores
support only powers of 4K page sizes, or in other
words the LSB of TSIZE on MMUv1 is always 0.
Thus, on MMUv2 we must not strip the LSB.
Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>
[Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com: addressed review
feedback, split in distinct patch]
Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Tudor <Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com>
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
index 4d33e19..12d5c67 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
@@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
unsigned long start, end;
unsigned long slot_start, slot_end;
+ int tsize_inc;
pfnmap = 1;
@@ -392,10 +393,20 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT;
/*
- * e500 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
- * or 1K pages.
+ * MMUv1 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
+ * or translations smaller than 4K.
*/
- tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize & ~1);
+ if (!has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu, VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2))
+ tsize &= ~1;
+ tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize);
+
+ /*
+ * Calculate TSIZE increment. MMUv2 supports
+ * power of 2K translations while MMUv1 is limited
+ * to power of 4K sizes.
+ */
+ tsize_inc = has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu,
+ VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2) ? 1 : 2;
/*
* Now find the largest tsize (up to what the guest
@@ -404,7 +415,8 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
* aligned.
*/
- for (; tsize > BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K; tsize -= 2) {
+ for (; tsize > BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K;
+ tsize -= tsize_inc) {
unsigned long gfn_start, gfn_end;
tsize_pages = 1 << (tsize - 2);
@@ -437,10 +449,12 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
tsize = min(__ilog2(psize) - 10, tsize);
/*
- * e500 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
- * or 1K pages.
+ * MMUv1 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
+ * or translations smaller than 4K.
*/
- tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize & ~1);
+ if (!has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu, VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2))
+ tsize &= ~1;
+ tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize);
}
up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes
2015-09-24 12:57 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes Laurentiu Tudor
@ 2015-09-24 20:23 ` Scott Wood
2015-09-25 14:30 ` Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-25 17:12 ` Scott Wood
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2015-09-24 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm-ppc
On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 15:57 +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
> Book-E MMUv2 present in e6500 cores supports
> powers of 2K page sizes while older MMUv1 cores
> support only powers of 4K page sizes, or in other
> words the LSB of TSIZE on MMUv1 is always 0.
> Thus, on MMUv2 we must not strip the LSB.
We can get better TLB utilization by not stripping it, but why "must not"
which makes it sound like a bugfix rather than an optimization?
> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>
> [Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com: addressed review
> feedback, split in distinct patch]
> Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Tudor <Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
> index 4d33e19..12d5c67 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
> @@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
>
> unsigned long start, end;
> unsigned long slot_start, slot_end;
> + int tsize_inc;
>
> pfnmap = 1;
>
> @@ -392,10 +393,20 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
> MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT;
>
> /*
> - * e500 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
> - * or 1K pages.
> + * MMUv1 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
> + * or translations smaller than 4K.
> */
> - tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize & ~1);
> + if (!has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu, VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2))
> + tsize &= ~1;
> + tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize);
> +
> + /*
> + * Calculate TSIZE increment. MMUv2 supports
> + * power of 2K translations while MMUv1 is limited
> + * to power of 4K sizes.
> + */
> + tsize_inc = has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu,
> + VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2) ? 1 : 2;
If you calculate tsize_inc first, then the previous if-statement can become
"tsize &= ~(tsize_inc - 1);".
>
> /*
> * Now find the largest tsize (up to what the guest
> @@ -404,7 +415,8 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
> * aligned.
> */
>
> - for (; tsize > BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K; tsize -= 2) {
> + for (; tsize > BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K;
> + tsize -= tsize_inc) {
> unsigned long gfn_start, gfn_end;
> tsize_pages = 1 << (tsize - 2);
>
> @@ -437,10 +449,12 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
> tsize = min(__ilog2(psize) - 10, tsize);
>
> /*
> - * e500 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
> - * or 1K pages.
> + * MMUv1 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
> + * or translations smaller than 4K.
> */
This comment makes it sound like MMUv2 might support translations smaller
than 4K.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes
2015-09-24 12:57 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-24 20:23 ` Scott Wood
@ 2015-09-25 14:30 ` Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-25 17:12 ` Scott Wood
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Laurentiu Tudor @ 2015-09-25 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm-ppc
On 09/24/2015 11:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 15:57 +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
>> Book-E MMUv2 present in e6500 cores supports
>> powers of 2K page sizes while older MMUv1 cores
>> support only powers of 4K page sizes, or in other
>> words the LSB of TSIZE on MMUv1 is always 0.
>> Thus, on MMUv2 we must not strip the LSB.
>
> We can get better TLB utilization by not stripping it, but why "must not"
> which makes it sound like a bugfix rather than an optimization?
Not sure i get it. If a guests wants a 2K^^(2n+1) translation
size it will instead get a 2K^^2n size, no? Isn't this an issue?
>> Signed-off-by: Mihai Caraman <mihai.caraman@freescale.com>
>> [Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com: addressed review
>> feedback, split in distinct patch]
>> Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Tudor <Laurentiu.Tudor@freescale.com>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>> index 4d33e19..12d5c67 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/e500_mmu_host.c
>> @@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
>> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
>>
>> unsigned long start, end;
>> unsigned long slot_start, slot_end;
>> + int tsize_inc;
>>
>> pfnmap = 1;
>>
>> @@ -392,10 +393,20 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
>> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
>> MAS1_TSIZE_SHIFT;
>>
>> /*
>> - * e500 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
>> - * or 1K pages.
>> + * MMUv1 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
>> + * or translations smaller than 4K.
>> */
>> - tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize & ~1);
>> + if (!has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu, VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2))
>> + tsize &= ~1;
>> + tsize = max(BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K, tsize);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Calculate TSIZE increment. MMUv2 supports
>> + * power of 2K translations while MMUv1 is limited
>> + * to power of 4K sizes.
>> + */
>> + tsize_inc = has_feature(&vcpu_e500->vcpu,
>> + VCPU_FTR_MMU_V2) ? 1 : 2;
>
> If you calculate tsize_inc first, then the previous if-statement can become
> "tsize &= ~(tsize_inc - 1);".
Thanks for the tip. Will do this in the next version.
>>
>> /*
>> * Now find the largest tsize (up to what the guest
>> @@ -404,7 +415,8 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
>> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
>> * aligned.
>> */
>>
>> - for (; tsize > BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K; tsize -= 2) {
>> + for (; tsize > BOOK3E_PAGESZ_4K;
>> + tsize -= tsize_inc) {
>> unsigned long gfn_start, gfn_end;
>> tsize_pages = 1 << (tsize - 2);
>>
>> @@ -437,10 +449,12 @@ static inline int kvmppc_e500_shadow_map(struct
>> kvmppc_vcpu_e500 *vcpu_e500,
>> tsize = min(__ilog2(psize) - 10, tsize);
>>
>> /*
>> - * e500 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
>> - * or 1K pages.
>> + * MMUv1 doesn't implement the lowest tsize bit,
>> + * or translations smaller than 4K.
>> */
>
> This comment makes it sound like MMUv2 might support translations smaller
> than 4K.
Right. I'll rephrase in the next spin.
Thanks for the review!
---
Best Regards, Laurentiu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes
2015-09-24 12:57 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-24 20:23 ` Scott Wood
2015-09-25 14:30 ` Laurentiu Tudor
@ 2015-09-25 17:12 ` Scott Wood
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2015-09-25 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm-ppc
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 17:30 +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
> On 09/24/2015 11:23 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 15:57 +0300, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
> > > Book-E MMUv2 present in e6500 cores supports
> > > powers of 2K page sizes while older MMUv1 cores
> > > support only powers of 4K page sizes, or in other
> > > words the LSB of TSIZE on MMUv1 is always 0.
> > > Thus, on MMUv2 we must not strip the LSB.
> >
> > We can get better TLB utilization by not stripping it, but why "must not"
> > which makes it sound like a bugfix rather than an optimization?
>
> Not sure i get it. If a guests wants a 2K^^(2n+1) translation
> size it will instead get a 2K^^2n size, no? Isn't this an issue?
It will get two pages of 2k^^2n size (assuming both halves are accessed). It
will work, it will just consume twice as many TLB1 entries. It's the same as
if the host pages backing the region are smaller than the mapping that the
guest tries to create.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-25 17:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-24 12:57 [PATCH] KVM: PPC: e6500: support powers of 2K TLB1 sizes Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-24 20:23 ` Scott Wood
2015-09-25 14:30 ` Laurentiu Tudor
2015-09-25 17:12 ` Scott Wood
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.