Alex Bennée writes:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 12:38, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>
>>> From: "Emilio G. Cota"
>>>
>>> We don't bother with replicating the fast path (tlb_hit) of the old
>>> cpu_ldst helpers as it has no measurable effect on performance. This
>>> probably i
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 12:38, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> From: "Emilio G. Cota"
>>
>> We don't bother with replicating the fast path (tlb_hit) of the old
>> cpu_ldst helpers as it has no measurable effect on performance. This
>> probably indicates we should consider flat
Peter Maydell writes:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 12:38, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> From: "Emilio G. Cota"
>>
>> We don't bother with replicating the fast path (tlb_hit) of the old
>> cpu_ldst helpers as it has no measurable effect on performance. This
>> probably indicates we should consider flat
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 12:38, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> From: "Emilio G. Cota"
>
> We don't bother with replicating the fast path (tlb_hit) of the old
> cpu_ldst helpers as it has no measurable effect on performance. This
> probably indicates we should consider flattening the whole set of
> helpers
On 10/14/19 3:49 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
> From: "Emilio G. Cota"
>
> We don't bother with replicating the fast path (tlb_hit) of the old
> cpu_ldst helpers as it has no measurable effect on performance. This
> probably indicates we should consider flattening the whole set of
> helpers but that is
From: "Emilio G. Cota"
We don't bother with replicating the fast path (tlb_hit) of the old
cpu_ldst helpers as it has no measurable effect on performance. This
probably indicates we should consider flattening the whole set of
helpers but that is out of scope for this change.
Suggested-by: Richar