From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53341) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gr2OG-000105-Cg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:12:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gr2O6-0002ty-Q4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:11:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f50.google.com ([209.85.128.50]:39471) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gr2O4-0002nS-KV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:11:50 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f50.google.com with SMTP id y8so4040691wmi.4 for ; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:11:43 -0800 (PST) References: <221f03c2-10ca-dc90-83f6-3781c356c8e0@redhat.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:11:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] 2x-3x tcg performance regression on ppc64 (maybe others) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Howard Spoelstra , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= , Richard Henderson , qemu-ppc , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Cleber Rosa On 2/5/19 4:08 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 14:47, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> I was going to send this patch and was looking for to fill the >> "Reported-by" tag to finalize the commit description before sending: >> >> -- >8 -- >> diff --git a/include/exec/exec-all.h b/include/exec/exec-all.h >> index aa7b81aaf0..8dc2aab60e 100644 >> --- a/include/exec/exec-all.h >> +++ b/include/exec/exec-all.h >> @@ -418,7 +418,8 @@ static inline uint32_t tb_cflags(const >> TranslationBlock *tb) >> static inline uint32_t curr_cflags(void) >> { >> return (parallel_cpus ? CF_PARALLEL : 0) >> - | (use_icount ? CF_USE_ICOUNT : 0); >> + | (use_icount ? CF_USE_ICOUNT : 0) >> + | CF_CLUSTER_MASK; >> } > > That's not right, because it puts all-1s in the cluster field. > That will happen to hit for TBs generated for CPUs in the > "not in a cluster" default UNASSIGNED_CLUSTER_INDEX, but it's > wrong for CPUs that are in a specifically assigned cluster > and will result in those failing to hit cached TBs when they should. Oh OK now I understand. Thanks for the explanation! Phil. > > thanks > -- PMM >