On 10/6/18 2:45 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> @@ -122,6 +123,39 @@ size_t tlb_flush_count(void)
> return count;
> }
>
> +/* Call with tlb_lock held */
> +static void tlb_mmu_resize_locked(CPUArchState *env, int mmu_idx)
> +{
> + CPUTLBDesc *desc = &env->tlb_desc[mmu_idx];
> + size_t rate = desc->used * 100 / desc->size;
> + size_t new_size = desc->size;
> +
> + if (rate == 100) {
> + new_size = MIN(desc->size << 2, 1 << TCG_TARGET_TLB_MAX_INDEX_BITS);
> + } else if (rate > 70) {
> + new_size = MIN(desc->size << 1, 1 << TCG_TARGET_TLB_MAX_INDEX_BITS);
> + } else if (rate < 30) {
> + desc->n_flushes_low_rate++;
> + if (desc->n_flushes_low_rate == 100) {
> + new_size = MAX(desc->size >> 1, 1 << MIN_CPU_TLB_BITS);
> + desc->n_flushes_low_rate = 0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (new_size == desc->size) {
s/desc->size/old_size/g
Otherwise it looks plausible as a first cut.
r~
