From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFAl-0000eF-4z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:08:23 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFAg-0000da-9N
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:08:22 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=46771 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LkFAg-0000dX-5U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:08:18 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:59403 helo=ciao.gmane.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gceq-qemu-devel@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1LkFAf-0006e7-N7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:08:17 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LkFAW-0002H7-TT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:08:08 +0000
Received: from 141.76.6.219 ([141.76.6.219])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:08:08 +0000
Received: from usenet by 141.76.6.219 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:08:08 +0000
From: Steffen Liebergeld <usenet@gmx.eu>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:07:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <gpt5ht$utu$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <gpo05k$6u4$1@ger.gmane.org> <49BF8A5B.7070706@siemens.com>
	<gpo56s$o1f$1@ger.gmane.org> <200903171251.41148.paul@codesourcery.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: branches are expensive
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

Hi Paul,

Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com> schrieb:
>> The ratio is quite bad. Do you have any documentation on when Qemu does the
>> chaining and more important, when it does not. For example are
>> unconditional jumps always chained, or only in one direction (forward or
>> backward).
>
> Direct jumps[1] within the same page are chained (including ). Indirect 
> jumps[2] and direct jumps to a different page are not chained. Chaining jumps 
> between pages would require breaking TB chains every time a TLB flush occurs.

I've tested Qemu 0.10.0 and with i386-softmmu on a i386 host I get the
following numbers:
direct jump count 70%, 2 jumps 54%

For qemu-system-arm on an ARM host, the numbers look like this:
direct jump count 47%, 2 jumps 40%

For completeness I tested qemu-system-arm on a i386 host as well:
direct jump count 44%, 2 jumps 37%

So it looks like the chaining on ARM targets is not as effective as on i386
targets (regardless of the guest, I used the same guest setup, compiled for
different architectures, on all tests). Do you have any ideas why this is the
case?

> Unchained jumps just a two stage lookup to cache frequently used entries.

Many thanks for your explanations.

> Paul
>
> [1] b, b<cc> and bl
> [2] bx, mov pc, ldr pc, pop {pc}

Greetings, Steffen