From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I4DVy-0001fJ-O2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:15:46 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I4DVy-0001f4-DQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:15:46 -0400
Received: from mx1.polytechnique.org ([129.104.30.34])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <fabrice@bellard.org>) id 1I4DVy-0007ZO-11
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:15:46 -0400
Received: from [172.17.17.9] (gw.netgem.com [195.68.2.34])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by ssl.polytechnique.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE723316C
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:15:26 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4684DBBD.2090907@bellard.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:15:25 +0200
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] 4G address space remapping on 64-bit host
References: <f43fc5580706290241jd71cb66y99f9e6ab25e4ab3f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43fc5580706290241jd71cb66y99f9e6ab25e4ab3f@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Hi,

In fact, running in 64 bit is not necessary : It is simpler and more 
efficient to use kqemu (or KVM) to handle the address space remapping. 
The trick is to run the translator in the upper part or lower part of 
the 32 bit address space and to protect it with segments.

Even in 64 bit mode, using kqemu would be more efficient because it 
could handle scattered address spaces more efficiently than the host OS.

Fabrice.

Blue Swirl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I had an idea of mapping the full 32-bit target virtual address space
> to a 4GB area on 64-bit hosts. Then the loads and stores to normal RAM
> (except page tables, code_mem_write etc) could be made much faster,
> falling back to softmmu for other pages. The idea has come up before,
> for example in this Fabrice's message:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/685
> 
> But I'm not sure if this would be worth the effort, the speedup would
> depend on the frequency of the loads/stores and also translation time
> vs. translated code execution times. Does anyone have good statistics
> on those?
> 
> 
> 
>