On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 01:08, Aleksandar Markovic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019, Peter Maydell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Include the cluster number in the hash we use to look >> up TBs. This is important because a TB that is valid >> for one cluster at a given physical address and set >> of CPU flags is not necessarily valid for another: >> the two clusters may have different views of physical >> memory, or may have different CPU features (eg FPU >> present or absent).
> I do understand the definition of cluster_index in the sense of this series. > However, it looks to me that the term "cluster" is generally overused in > areas where we work. This may lead to some confusion for future developers, > and let me suggest some other name, like "tcg_cluster_index" or > "tcg_group_id", or "translation_group_id". Admitedly, they all sound ugly to > me too. But having the name that would clearly separate this id from too > generic "cluster_index" IMHO would save lots of time during potential related > future development. > > (Needled to say that, for example, we in MIPS, for multi-core sustems, group > cores in clusters, that actually do not have anything to do with clusters in > TCG sense...) Yeah, the term is a bit overloaded. Arm also has clusters that are used more in the NUMA sense. However, the term we have is what is in git master currently... thanks -- PMM
