From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36416) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJQXO-0006DO-JE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 17:34:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJQXJ-0004Bo-Ke for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 17:34:14 -0400 Received: from mail-pl0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::241]:36262) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJQXJ-0004BQ-ES for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 17:34:09 -0400 Received: by mail-pl0-x241.google.com with SMTP id v24-v6so3299695plo.3 for ; Thu, 17 May 2018 14:34:09 -0700 (PDT) References: <20180517174718.10107-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <20180517174718.10107-30-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <9b8a5a71-2071-ef5c-07b2-3797883ed22e@linaro.org> <87muwydlgc.fsf@linaro.org> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:34:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87muwydlgc.fsf@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 29/49] tests/tcg/arm: disable -p 32768 mmap test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= Cc: cota@braap.org, famz@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, f4bug@amsat.org, balrogg@gmail.com, aurelien@aurel32.net, agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , "open list:ARM" On 05/17/2018 02:24 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Richard Henderson writes: > >> On 05/17/2018 10:46 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> Broken since I updated to 18.04 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée >>> --- >>> tests/tcg/arm/Makefile.target | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> Meh. Most of these fail for hosts with 64k pages. >> So, sure, disable this one, but I don't think that >> the others are useful either. > > I'm not entirely sure what the point of -p is meant to be. Is it just a > performance hack for linux-user to have bigger pages? We are not using > softmmu but I guess it affects the PageDesc structures? I think it was just meant for testing, but I really have no idea. If we actually had better support for mismatched host/guest page sizes, then one could view -p as a way to choose between legitimate guest page sizes. E.g. 8k, 16k, 64k are all legitimate for aarch64. r~