From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44015)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1SBk8q-0001kZ-RN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:53:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1SBk8p-00049b-5l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:53:40 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16041)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1SBk8o-00049U-UA
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:53:39 -0400
Message-ID: <4F6EEB1D.5090008@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:53:33 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4F671F55.4050004@redhat.com>
	<CAMo8BfK9kYuiDohiUwzLAyNGQrCtYnA_Yg5mpOpfrL1Y-AEhkg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F673DEE.3040508@redhat.com> <4F6E7C4E.9090409@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F6E7C4E.9090409@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Xtensa misuse of tb_invalidate_phys_page_range()?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 03/25/2012 04:00 AM, Max Filippov wrote:
>>
>> Since I'm rewriting this area, don't worry about efficiency.  Let's get
>> it correct and after the rewrite we can reexamine efficiency.
>>
>> I imagine you'll need something like breakpoint_invalidate().
>
> The following RFC patch takes the obvious approach of sharing the
> breakpoint_invalidate
> implementation to address this issue. 

Looks good.

> But if we're talking about correctness it's not
> 100% correct, because guest TLB is independent of both instruction
> breakpoints and
> zero overhead loops, and at the moment of TB invalidation relevant TLB
> mapping may not
> exist.
>
> Even if we managed to record physical addresses of TBs at the current
> IBREAKA/LEND, it's
> not enough because we need to invalidate TBs both at the old and at
> the new IBREAKA/LEND
> virtual addresses.
>
> What do you think, do we need yet another address-to-TB map?
>

No idea what all that means, sorry.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function