On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 07:48:20 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Emilio G. Cota writes:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:19:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> If we are going to have an indirection then we can also drop the
> >> requirement to scale the TLB according to the number of MMU indexes we
Emilio G. Cota writes:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:19:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> If we are going to have an indirection then we can also drop the
>> requirement to scale the TLB according to the number of MMU indexes we
>> have to support. It's fairly wasteful when a bunch of them are alm
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 15:40:37 -0500, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/1/18 1:34 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:19:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> If we are going to have an indirection then we can also drop the
> >> requirement to scale the TLB according to the number
On 10/1/18 1:34 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:19:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> If we are going to have an indirection then we can also drop the
>> requirement to scale the TLB according to the number of MMU indexes we
>> have to support. It's fairly wasteful when a bunch
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:19:51 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> If we are going to have an indirection then we can also drop the
> requirement to scale the TLB according to the number of MMU indexes we
> have to support. It's fairly wasteful when a bunch of them are almost
> never used unless you are
On 9/19/18 10:54 AM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> I've been thinking about ways to increase softmmu performance
> by speeding up TLB accesses.
>
> Last year, Pranith proposed to increase the size of the TLBs:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9927793/
> The problem with that approach is that it sl
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 17:23:29 -0700, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 September 2018 at 17:19, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> An additional improvement that I have thought of is to get rid
> >> of memset(-1) altogether. Instead, we'd store addresses in the TLB
> >> as $real_address+1, so that 0xff..ff is
On 19 September 2018 at 17:19, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> An additional improvement that I have thought of is to get rid
>> of memset(-1) altogether. Instead, we'd store addresses in the TLB
>> as $real_address+1, so that 0xff..ff is stored as 0x00..00. That way,
>> instead of malloc+memset we'd just c
Emilio G. Cota writes:
> I've been thinking about ways to increase softmmu performance
> by speeding up TLB accesses.
>
> Last year, Pranith proposed to increase the size of the TLBs:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9927793/
> The problem with that approach is that it slows down flushes
I've been thinking about ways to increase softmmu performance
by speeding up TLB accesses.
Last year, Pranith proposed to increase the size of the TLBs:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9927793/
The problem with that approach is that it slows down flushes
significantly, since they have to mems
10 matches
Mail list logo
