From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40366)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TBXi9-0000Xq-Ld
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:09:34 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TBXi8-0001SP-OQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:09:33 -0400
Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52]:44956)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1TBXi8-0001SJ-Gy
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:09:32 -0400
Received: by qabg14 with SMTP id g14so592498qab.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <504FA888.70808@twiddle.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:09:28 -0700
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1347224784-19472-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<1347224784-19472-87-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<CAAu8pHtMKh4Ss_CJfBPcZwgDU4WHJV5q2gXAHKa1Xowb=7LR2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAu8pHtMKh4Ss_CJfBPcZwgDU4WHJV5q2gXAHKa1Xowb=7LR2w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 086/126] target-s390: Convert CLST, MVST
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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>

On 09/11/2012 12:11 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
> PSW_MASK_64 bit could be added to TB flags and that could be checked
> during translation, then the mask needs to be applied only when the
> mode is active. Whether that actually improves performance depends on
> how often the bit is changed. Also all PSW writes need to be handled,
> possibly causing a TB flush.

Actually I'm not sure why we check this at all, given that we only
actually handle 64-bit mode -- at least as documented by the code
implementing the SET ADDRESS MODE instruction.

That said, we do encode the bit in TB flags, and we do perform this
masking for qemu loads performed within the TB.  No TB flushes are
required because we simply don't match TBs with different flags.

As for clst, mvst, srst, I thought about performing the masking in
the TB, but didn't figure it was worth it.  Do you have an opinion, Alex?


r~