On 02/01/2017 03:03 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> writes:
>
>> On 01/27/2017 02:39 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> + for (mmu_idx = 0; mmu_idx < NB_MMU_MODES; mmu_idx++) {
>>>
>>> - tlb_debug("%d\n", mmu_idx);
>>> + if (test_bit(mmu_idx, &mmu_idx_bitmask)) {
>>> + tlb_debug("%d\n", mmu_idx);
>>>
>>> - memset(env->tlb_table[mmu_idx], -1, sizeof(env->tlb_table[0]));
>>> - memset(env->tlb_v_table[mmu_idx], -1, sizeof(env->tlb_v_table[0]));
>>> + memset(env->tlb_table[mmu_idx], -1, sizeof(env->tlb_table[0]));
>>> + memset(env->tlb_v_table[mmu_idx], -1,
>>> sizeof(env->tlb_v_table[0]));
>>> + }
>>
>> Perhaps it doesn't matter since NB_MMU_MODES is so small but
>>
>> for (; idxmap != 0; idxmap &= idxmap - 1) {
>> int mmu_idx = ctz32(idxmap);
>> ...
>> }
>
> Perhaps but if it is OK with you I'll skip this optimisation for now? We
> are basically in the slow path by this point and for clarity I'd prefer
> to keep it as is.
That's fine.
r~
