Re: [Fwd: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: Code fetch optimisation]

[J. Mayer]

On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 10:11 +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 10/13/07, J. Mayer <address@hidden> wrote:
> > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > From: Jocelyn Mayer <address@hidden>
> > > Reply-To: address@hidden, address@hidden
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] RFC: Code fetch optimisation
> > > Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:24:44 +0200
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 18:21 +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > > > On 10/12/07, J. Mayer <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > Here's a small patch that allow an optimisation for code fetch, at 
> > > > > least
> > > > > for RISC CPU targets, as suggested by Fabrice Bellard.
> > > > > The main idea is that a translated block is never to span over a page
> > > > > boundary. As the tb_find_slow routine already gets the physical 
> > > > > address
> > > > > of the page of code to be translated, the code translator could then
> > > > > fetch the code using raw host memory accesses instead of doing it
> > > > > through the softmmu routines.
> > > > > This patch could also be adapted to RISC CPU targets, with care for 
> > > > > the
> > > > > last instruction of a page. For now, I did implement it for alpha, 
> > > > > arm,
> > > > > mips, PowerPC and SH4.
> > > > > I don't actually know if the optimsation would bring a sensible speed
> > > > > gain or if it will be absolutelly marginal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please comment.
> > > >
> > > > This will not work correctly for execution of MMIO registers, but
> > > > maybe that won't work on real hardware either. Who cares.
> > >
> > > I wonder if this is important or not... But maybe, when retrieving the
> > > physical address we could check if it is inside ROM/RAM or an I/O area
> > > and in the last case do not give the phys_addr information to the
> > > translator. In that case, it would go on using the ldxx_code. I guess if
> > > we want to do that, a set of helpers would be appreciated to avoid
> > > adding code like:
> > > if (phys_pc == 0)
> > >   opc = ldul_code(virt_pc)
> > > else
> > >   opc = ldul_raw(phys_pc)
> > > everywhere... I could also add another check so this set of macro would
> > > automatically use ldxx_code if we reach a page boundary, which would
> > > then make easy to use this optimisation for CISC/VLE architectures too.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure of the proper solution to allow executing code from mmio
> > > devices. But adding specific accessors to handle the CISC/VLE case is to
> > > be done.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I did update my patch following this way and it's now able to run x86
> > and PowerPC targets.
> > PowerPC is the easy case, x86 is maybe the worst... Well, I'm not really
> > sure of what I've done for Sparc, but other targets should be safe.
> 
> It broke Sparc, delay slot handling makes things complicated. The
> updated patch passes my tests.

OK. I will take a look of how you solved this issue.

> For extra performance, I bypassed the ldl_code_p. On Sparc,
> instructions can't be split between two pages. Isn't translation
> always contained to the same page for all targets like Sparc?

Yes, for RISC targets running 32 bits mode, we always stop translation
when we reach the end of a code page. The problem comes with CISC
architectures, like x86 or m68k, or RISC architecture running 16/32 bits
code, like ARM in thumb mode or PowerPC in VLE mode. In all those case,
there can be instructions spanning on 2 pages, then we need the
ldx_code_p functions.
My idea of always using the ldx_code_p function is that we may have the
occasion to make it more cleaver and make the slow case handle code
execution in mmio areas, when it will be possible.

-- 
J. Mayer <address@hidden>
Never organized