From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 4/4] KVM: emulator: optimize "rep ins" handling.
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 18:18:37 +0300
Message-ID: <20120805151837.GT27579@redhat.com>
References: <1343659101-24877-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
 <1343659101-24877-5-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com>
 <501E8B30.4060702@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, mtosatti@redhat.com
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60751 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754531Ab2HEPSj (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:18:39 -0400
Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q75FIdgE002794
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 11:18:39 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <501E8B30.4060702@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 06:03:12PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/30/2012 05:38 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Optimize "rep ins" by allowing emulator to write back more than one
> > datum at a time. Introduce new operand type OP_MEM_STR which tells
> > writeback() that dst contains pointer to an array that should be written
> > back as opposite to just one data element.
> > 
> >  
> >  	if (ctxt->rep_prefix && (ctxt->d & String)) {
> > +		unsigned int count;
> >  		struct read_cache *r = &ctxt->io_read;
> > -		register_address_increment(ctxt, &ctxt->regs[VCPU_REGS_RCX], -1);
> > +		if ((ctxt->d & SrcMask) == SrcSI)
> > +			count = ctxt->src.count;
> > +		else
> > +			count = ctxt->dst.count;
> > +		register_address_increment(ctxt, &ctxt->regs[VCPU_REGS_RCX],
> > +				-count);
> >  
> 
> count is unsigned.  Does it sign extend correctly in
> register_address_increment()?
> 
I think it sign extent before register_address_increment() when compiler
sees -count. count is in the range 1-1024 here, so there shouldn't be a
problem. By I welcome better suggestions.

--
			Gleb.