> -----Original Message----- > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:38 PM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; linuxppc- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6 v5] kvm: booke: clear host tlb reference flag on guest > tlb invalidation > > On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 13:04 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > > Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 9:48 PM > > > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > > > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > linuxppc- [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6 v5] kvm: booke: clear host tlb reference > > > flag on guest tlb invalidation > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-09-19 at 23:19 -0500, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > > > > We uses these bit flags only for TLB1 and if size of stlbe is 4K > > > > then we set E500_TLB_TLB0 otherwise we set E500_TLB_BITMAP. > > > > Although I think that E500_TLB_BITMAP should be set only if stlbe > > > > size is less than gtlbe size. > > > > > > Why? Even if there's only one bit set in the map, we need it to > > > keep track of which entry was used. > > > > If there is one entry then will not this be simple/faster to not lookup > > bitmap > and guest->host array? > > A flag indicate it is 1:1 map and this is physical address. > > The difference would be negligible, and you'd have added overhead (both > runtime > and complexity) of making this a special case.
May be you are right , I will see if I can give a try :) BTW I have already sent v6 of this patch. -Bharat > > -Scott >
