From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KrxkX-00045v-Mq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:36:57 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KrxkX-00045X-85
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:36:57 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48166 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KrxkX-00045S-01
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:36:57 -0400
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.155]:3508)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1KrxkX-0007WU-0i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:36:57 -0400
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so279285ywa.82
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f43fc5580810200936q1631fa61t1c4bf4e651f021a4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:36:52 +0300
From: "Blue Swirl" <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Optimize ld[bwlq]_phys and st[bwlq]_phys
In-Reply-To: <1224014348-13765-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1224014348-13765-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
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
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>

On 10/14/08, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> This patch optimizes the ld and st functions that operate on physical addresses.
>  Right now, a number of them default to cpu_phys_memory_{read,write} which is
>  very slow.  As long as the operations are aligned, it is safe to just lookup
>  the page and directly read/write the data via ld_p or st_p.
>
>  This patch introduces a common function since all of these functions are
>  roughly the same.  I've tested x86 and sparc with Linux and Windows guests.
>
>  I'm pretty confident that this new code is functionally equivalent but I wanted
>  to have someone else confirm this.

Why there are special cases for lduw and stw?

I'd add 'inline' to the common functions, otherwise looks OK.