Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH][RFC] Optimize ld[bwlq]_phys and st[bwlq]_phys

[Anthony Liguori]

Blue Swirl wrote:
> On 10/14/08, Anthony Liguori <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
> > This patch optimizes the ld and st functions that operate on physical addresses.
> >  Right now, a number of them default to cpu_phys_memory_{read,write} which is
> >  very slow.  As long as the operations are aligned, it is safe to just lookup
> >  the page and directly read/write the data via ld_p or st_p.
> >
> >  This patch introduces a common function since all of these functions are
> >  roughly the same.  I've tested x86 and sparc with Linux and Windows guests.
> >
> >  I'm pretty confident that this new code is functionally equivalent but I wanted
> >  to have someone else confirm this.
> >     
>
> Why there are special cases for lduw and stw?
>   

I figured the 'u' in lduw stood for unaligned.  The "optimization" only 
works if the physical address is aligned because it doesn't handle the 
case where a word would cross a physical page boundary.  This is why it 
falls back to cpu_physical_memory_rw which can handle this.

ldub is the same, but since it's a single byte, it can't cross a page 
boundary so I don't think the special casing is necessary (or really 
possible :-)).

I wasn't sure about stw.  The current code didn't assume alignment but 
the name doesn't imply that alignment is necessary.  I added a fallback 
case just to be on the safe side in case any code depends on it today.

FWIW, I'm still not sure this optimization really makes anything faster.

> I'd add 'inline' to the common functions, otherwise looks OK.
>   

In general, I tend to avoid inline unless it's required for correctness 
(like in a header file in combination with static).  In general, the 
compiler can make better decisions about inlining than a person can.  
I'm not at all interested in starting a long thread about the merits of 
'inline' but suffice to say that this is not an uncommon view.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori