From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IdQU2-0000aK-K1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:11:18 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IdQU0-0000Z2-UO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:11:17 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdQU0-0000Yj-IP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:11:16 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <clemens.kol@gmx.at>) id 1IdQTy-0001Vt-EK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:11:16 -0400
From: Clemens Kolbitsch <clemens.kol@gmx.at>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] CPU_TLB_BITS / CPU_TLB_SIZE
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:11:10 +0200
References: <20071003160352.23790gmx1@mx060.gmx.net>
	<200710041438.01463.clemens.kol@gmx.at>
	<20071004130522.GT16772@networkno.de>
In-Reply-To: <20071004130522.GT16772@networkno.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200710041511.10736.clemens.kol@gmx.at>
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: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Thursday 04 October 2007 15:05:22 Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Clemens Kolbitsch wrote:
> > hi everyone!
> > if i want to increase the size of my TLB (for emulating an i386
> > processor), is it enough to simply increase CPU_TLB_BITS (e.g. by one)??
>
> IIRC CPU_TLB_BITS needs to be a 2^n value.

sure that you don't confuse that with CPU_TLB_SIZE?

CPU_TLB_SIZE will always be a 2^n value because of its definition

#define CPU_TLB_SIZE (1 << CPU_TLB_BITS)


but honestly, I don't know (that's why i asked in the first place ;-) )

can someone back up thiemo's opinion? (or can you give me a hint on where this 
constraint is necessary?)

thanks!!