On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:28 +0800, Liu Yu-B13201 wrote:
> > > > Some of the refactoring you've done, like creating
> > completely separate
> > > > kvmppc_handle_tlb_miss() functions, surprises me. For example, I'd
> > > > expect the DTLB miss code to be refactored like this:
> > > >
> > > > case BOOKE_INTERRUPT_DTLB_MISS:
> > > > gtlbe = kvmppc_dtlb_search(vcpu, eaddr); <- CORE HOOK
> > > > if (!gtlbe) {
> > > > /* The guest didn't have a mapping for it. */
> > > > kvmppc_queue_exception(vcpu, exit_nr);
> > > > vcpu->arch.dear = vcpu->arch.fault_dear;
> > > > vcpu->arch.esr = vcpu->arch.fault_esr;
> > > > kvmppc_deliver_dtlb_miss(vcpu); <- CORE HOOK
> > > > vcpu->stat.dtlb_real_miss_exits++;
> > > > r = RESUME_GUEST;
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > vcpu->arch.paddr_accessed = tlb_xlate(gtlbe, eaddr);
> > > > gfn = vcpu->arch.paddr_accessed >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > >
> > > > if (kvm_is_visible_gfn(vcpu->kvm, gfn)) {
> > > > kvmppc_mmu_map(vcpu, eaddr, gfn, gtlbe->tid,
> > > > gtlbe->word2); <- CORE HOOK
> > > > vcpu->stat.dtlb_virt_miss_exits++;
> > > > r = RESUME_GUEST;
> > > > } else
> > > > r = kvmppc_emulate_mmio(run, vcpu);
> > > >
> > > > break;
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hollis, I'm reconsiderring this place.
> > > The problem is that e500 has 2 TLB, so I need to get the
> > tlb index and
> > > entry index from kvmppc_dtlb_search
> > > And if kvm_is_visible_gfn() returns nonzero, the two index
> > are needed to
> > > manipulate TLB0 or TLB1.
> >
> > OK, sounds reasonable. Feel free to change the prototypes of
> > these hooks
> > to whatever you need, as long as it's clean and still lets me
> > implement
> > 440.
> >
> > For example, maybe something like this:
> > int kvmppc_dtlb_index(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 eaddr);
> >
> > You could then encode the TLB index in the high bits of the return
> > index. Alternatively, you could pass &tlb and &index, but I
> > think I like
> > that less.
> >
>
> I just wanted you to know this place has some dependent factors.
> Never mind. I think I could use the your former suggestion.
> I could calculate the index by offset or save index in vcpu->arch.
> What's your opinion?
I would definitely prefer using the index as a return value, rather than
saving to vcpu->arch.
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
