qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v6 00/14] Slow-path for atomic instruction transla


From: alvise rigo
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v6 00/14] Slow-path for atomic instruction translation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:21:06 +0100

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Andrew Baumann
<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:qemu-devel-
> > address@hidden On Behalf Of
> > Alvise Rigo
> > Sent: Monday, 14 December 2015 00:41
> >
> > This is the sixth iteration of the patch series which applies to the
> > upstream branch of QEMU (v2.5.0-rc3).
> >
> > Changes versus previous versions are at the bottom of this cover letter.
> >
> > The code is also available at following repository:
> > https://git.virtualopensystems.com/dev/qemu-mt.git
> > branch:
> > slowpath-for-atomic-v6-no-mttcg
> >
> > This patch series provides an infrastructure for atomic instruction
> > implementation in QEMU, thus offering a 'legacy' solution for
> > translating guest atomic instructions. Moreover, it can be considered as
> > a first step toward a multi-thread TCG.
> >
> > The underlying idea is to provide new TCG helpers (sort of softmmu
> > helpers) that guarantee atomicity to some memory accesses or in general
> > a way to define memory transactions.
> >
> > More specifically, the new softmmu helpers behave as LoadLink and
> > StoreConditional instructions, and are called from TCG code by means of
> > target specific helpers. This work includes the implementation for all
> > the ARM atomic instructions, see target-arm/op_helper.c.
>
> As a heads up, we just added support for alignment checks in LDREX:
> https://github.com/qemu/qemu/commit/30901475b91ef1f46304404ab4bfe89097f61b96

Thank you for the update.

>
> Hopefully it is an easy change to ensure that the same check happens for the 
> relevant loads when CONFIG_TCG_USE_LDST_EXCL is enabled?

It should be if we add an aligned variant for each of the exclusive helper.
BTW, why don't we make the check also for the STREX instruction?

Regards,
alvise

>
> Thanks,
> Andrew



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]