Re: [PATCH] target/riscv: reduce overhead of MSTATUS_SUM change

[Richard Henderson]

On 3/21/23 19:47, Wu, Fei wrote:
> > > You should be making use of different softmmu indexes, similar to how
> > > ARM uses a separate index for PAN (privileged access never) mode.  If
> > > I read the manual properly, PAN == !SUM.
> > >
> > > When you do this, you need no additional flushing.
> >
> > Hi Fei,
> >
> > Let's follow Richard's advice.
> > Yes, I'm thinking about how to do it, and thank Richard for the advice.
>
> My question is:
> * If we ensure this separate index (S+SUM) has no overlapping tlb
> entries with S-mode (ignore M-mode so far), during SUM=1, we have to
> look into both (S+SUM) and S index for kernel address translation, that
> should be not desired.

This is an incorrect assumption.  S+SUM may very well have overlapping tlb 
entries with S.
With SUM=1, you *only* look in S+SUM index; with SUM=0, you *only* look in S 
index.

The only difference is a check in get_physical_address is no longer against MSTATUS_SUM 
directly, but against the mmu_index.

> * If all the tlb operations are against (S+SUM) during SUM=1, then
> (S+SUM) could contain some duplicated tlb entries of kernel address in S
> index, the duplication means extra tlb lookup and fill.

Yes, if the same address is probed via S and S+SUM, there is a duplicated lookup.  But 
this is harmless.


> Also if we want
> to flush tlb entry of specific addr0, we have to flush both index.

Yes, this is also true.  But so far target/riscv is making no use of per-mmuidx flushing. 
At the moment you're *only* using tlb_flush(cpu), which flushes every mmuidx.  Nor are you 
making use of per-page flushing.

So, really, no change required at all there.


r~