From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45220) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJWN3-0004Yx-H5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 23:47:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fJWN2-0000dz-NR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 May 2018 23:47:57 -0400 Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu=2DDaud=C3=A9?= References: <20180517174718.10107-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <20180517174718.10107-30-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <9b8a5a71-2071-ef5c-07b2-3797883ed22e@linaro.org> <87muwydlgc.fsf@linaro.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= Message-ID: <96968166-c412-bd9f-5b85-d6449308f895@amsat.org> Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 00:47:41 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 29/49] tests/tcg/arm: disable -p 32768 mmap test List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson , =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= Cc: cota@braap.org, famz@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, balrogg@gmail.com, aurelien@aurel32.net, agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell , "open list:ARM" On 05/17/2018 06:34 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 05/17/2018 02:24 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> >> Richard Henderson writes: >> >>> On 05/17/2018 10:46 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> Broken since I updated to 18.04 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée >>>> --- >>>> tests/tcg/arm/Makefile.target | 8 ++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> Meh. Most of these fail for hosts with 64k pages. >>> So, sure, disable this one, but I don't think that >>> the others are useful either. >> >> I'm not entirely sure what the point of -p is meant to be. Is it just a >> performance hack for linux-user to have bigger pages? We are not using >> softmmu but I guess it affects the PageDesc structures? > > I think it was just meant for testing, but I really have no idea. > > If we actually had better support for mismatched host/guest page sizes, then > one could view -p as a way to choose between legitimate guest page sizes. E.g. > 8k, 16k, 64k are all legitimate for aarch64. 8k + 16k on aarch64: Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé