On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:42:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 05:37 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:56:43PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>On 11/14/2013 04:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 08:54:11AM +0000, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>>Michael S. Tsirkin <mst <at> redhat.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>>At the moment, memory radix tree is already variable width, but it can
> >>>>>only skip the low bits of address.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This is efficient if we have huge memory regions but inefficient if we
> >>>>>are only using a tiny portion of the address space.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>After we have built up the map, detect
> >>>>>configurations where a single L2 entry is valid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We then speed up the lookup by skipping one or more levels.
> >>>>>In case any levels were skipped, we might end up in a valid section
> >>>>>instead of erroring out. We handle this by checking that
> >>>>>the address is in range of the resulting section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>I think this is overkill. It can be done in a simpler way as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>phys_page_find(RadixTree* tr, hwaddr index, ...)
> >>>>{
> >>>> if (index & rt->invalid_index_mask) {
> >>>> // not found
> >>>> }
> >>>> lp = rt->root;
> >>>> for (i = rt->nb_levels - 1; i >= 0 && !lp.is_leaf; --i) {
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>This exploits the fact the lower portion of the address space is always
> >>>>filled, at least in the cases that matter to us.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Basically skip unused high bits?
> >>>Sure.
> >>>In fact I think both optimizations can be combined.
> >>Not much value in combining them -- the variable level tree check
> >>will be dominated by the level skip logic.
> >>
> >>IMO however skipping intermediate levels will be too rare to justify
> >>the complexity and the doubling of the page table size -- it can
> >>only happen in iommu setups that place memory in very high
> >>addresses. These ought to be rare.
> >>
> >Well maybe not very high address, but you can have a device with
> >a 64 bit bar and this will add back levels (though it would not
> >be slower than it is currently).
> >
> >I agree the simplicity is attractive.
> >
> >However I really would like some logic that can handle > 1 leaf
> >somehow.
> >
> >Specifically both tricks break if we add a full 64 bit io region
> >in order to return -1 for reads on master abort.
>
> That can be achieved by directing a missed lookup to a catch-all region.
>
> It would be best to do this completely internally to the memory
> code, without API changes.
You mean e.g. add a catch-all region to the address space?
