From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LzZjd-0007VR-KZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:07:45 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LzZjY-0007Sa-1G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:07:44 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49540 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LzZjX-0007SX-Ui for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:07:39 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:9451) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LzZjX-0004ox-FN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:07:39 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LzZjW-0005kj-K5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:07:38 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] cleanup cpu-exec.c: =?iso-8859-1?q?consolidate=09handle=5Fcpu=5Fsignal?= Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:07:35 +0100 References: <1240364008-7065-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <200904301710.38740.paul@codesourcery.com> <49F9D329.3030008@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <49F9D329.3030008@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904301807.36073.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Avi Kivity , Nathan Froyd On Thursday 30 April 2009, Avi Kivity wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: > > This is most likely a remnant of the long-deceased qemu-fast, which used > > mmap tricks to avoid MMU emulation in system mode. > > I'd really like to see kvm used to implement something like this (to > emulate non-x86 on x86). It's something I've considered a few times. It gets hairy fairly quickly though. You're probably also going to hit a world of pain if your host pagesize is larger than your guest pagesize, and for guests with a software managed TLB shadow paging gets much more interesting. There's very little of the old code left, and it's bitrotten enough that there's no point trying to keep it on the offchance that it'll be useful. Paul