From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IY4EJ-0003gu-3b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:24:55 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IY4EH-0003gS-HE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:24:54 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IY4EH-0003gL-4X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:24:53 -0400
Received: from bangui.magic.fr ([195.154.194.245])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <l_indien@magic.fr>) id 1IY4EG-0001my-L1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:24:52 -0400
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] SVM support]
From: "J. Mayer" <l_indien@magic.fr>
In-Reply-To: <200709191635.51270.paul@codesourcery.com>
References: <1190148856.14938.247.camel@rapid>
	<00FC6422-CB9E-4C8D-9B27-C77A072A1234@suse.de>
	<1190212770.12194.16.camel@jma4.dev.netgem.com>
	<200709191635.51270.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:24:42 +0200
Message-Id: <1190226282.14938.358.camel@rapid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>

On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 16:35 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > >> OK, great. Having 64 bits may also help for additional (ie future...)
> > > >> features in PowerPC 64 emulation.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe worth letting the target say whether it needs 32 or 64-bit
> > > > flags.
> > > > The flag lookup is likely to be on a hot path.
> > > >
> >
> > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that TB flags are only used to be
> > compared in tb_find_fast and tb_find_slow, which are not a very fast
> > path (we come here when we cannot jump directly to the next tb and are
> > not in the most time critical code) then we can afford adding a few asm
> > instructions (I would say max 2 ?) to replace a 32 bits comparison with
> > a 64 bits one. My feeling is that the performance loss here won't be
> > sensible, but that may need to be proved.
> 
> For some reason I thought the flags were also used in the hash lookup. This is 
> not the case, so I withdraw my objection.

OK, then I feel like the flags size modification patch is acceptable.
If there is no objection (and if no one commits it before ;-)), I'm
ready to integrate it in the days to come.

-- 
J. Mayer <l_indien@magic.fr>
Never organized