> -----Original Message----- > From: kvm-ppc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:kvm-ppc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hollis Blanchard > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 12:07 AM > To: Liu Yu-B13201 > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; agraf@xxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] kvm/e500v2: MMU optimization > > On 09/08/2010 02:40 AM, Liu Yu wrote: > > The patchset aims at mapping guest TLB1 to host TLB0. > > And it includes: > > [PATCH 1/2] kvm/e500v2: Remove shadow tlb > > [PATCH 2/2] kvm/e500v2: mapping guest TLB1 to host TLB0 > > > > The reason we need patch 1 is because patch 1 make things > simple and flexible. > > Only applying patch 1 aslo make kvm work. > > I've always thought the best long-term "optimization" on > these cores is > to share in the host PID allocation (i.e. __init_new_context()). This > way, the TID in guest mappings would not overlap the TID in host > mappings, and guest mappings could be demand-faulted rather > than swapped > wholesale. To do that, you would need to track the host PID > in KVM data > structures, I guess in the tlbe_ref structure. > Hi Hollis, Guest uses AS=1 and host uses AS=0, so even guest uses the same TID with host, they're in different space. Then why guest needs to care about host TID? Thanks, Yu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
