On 07/06/2021 18:06, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 6/7/21 12:29 PM, Bruno Piazera Larsen wrote:
>> I just tried sending mmu_idx all the way down, but I ran into a very 
>> weird bug of gcc. If we have to add one more parameter that GCC can't 
>> just optimize away we get at least a slow down of 5x for the first 
>> test of check-acceptance (could be more, but the test times out after 
>> 900 seconds, so I'm not sure).
>
> That's odd.  We already have more arguments than the number of 
> argument registers...  A 5x slowdown is distinctly odd.
I did some more digging and the problem is not with 
ppc_radix64_check_prot, the problem is ppc_radix64_xlate, which 
currently has 7 arguments and we're increasing to 8. 7 feels like the 
correct number, but I couldn't find docs supporting it, so I could be 
wrong.
>
>
>> One way that I managed to get around that is saving the current MSR, 
>> setting it to 5, and restoring after the xlate call. The code ended 
>> up something like:
>>
>> int new_idx = (5<<HFLAGS_IMMU_IDX) | (5<<HFLAGS_DMMU_IDX);
>> int clr = (7<<HFLAGS_IMMU_IDX) | (7<<HFLAGS_DMMU_IDX);
>> int old_idx = env->msr & clr;
>> clr = ~clr;
>> /* set new msr so we don't need to send the mmu_idx */
>> env->msr = (env->msr & clr) | new_idx;
>> ret = ppc_radix64_partition_scoped_xlate(...);
>> /* restore old mmu_idx */
>> env->msr = (env->msr & clr) | old_idx;
>
> No, this is silly.
>
> We need to do one of two things:
>   - make sure everything is inlined,
>   - reduce the number of arguments.
>
> We're currently passing in 9 arguments, which really is too many 
> already.  We should be using something akin to mmu_ctx_t, but probably 
> specific to radix64 without the random stuff collected for random 
> other mmu models.

That means we'd have to define radix_ctx_t (or however we call it) in 
radix64.h, setup the struct on ppc_xlate, then pass it to ppc_radix64_xlate.

 From looking at the code, it seems the most useful bits to put in the 
struct are: eaddr, g_addr, h_addr, {h,g}_prot, {g,h}_page_size, mmu_idx 
and guest_visible. They all seem reasonable to me, but I might be 
missing something again.

>
>
> r~
Another question: I know hash mmus don't have this problem, but since 
ppc_jumbo_xlate also uses mmu_idx, should we make those xlate user 
mmu_idxs as well? I tested and it doesn't make a time difference.
-- 
Bruno Piazera Larsen
Instituto de Pesquisas ELDORADO 
<https://www.eldorado.org.br/?utm_campaign=assinatura_de_e-mail&utm_medium=email&utm_source=RD+Station>
Departamento Computação Embarcada
Analista de Software Trainee
Aviso Legal - Disclaimer <https://www.eldorado.org.br/disclaimer.html>