[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] tcg: reorder removal from lists in tb_phys_

From: Sergey Fedorov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] tcg: reorder removal from lists in tb_phys_invalidate
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:03:15 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

On 29/03/16 00:21, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 28/03/2016 17:18, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> The use pattern of 'tb_invalidated_flag' is a bit intricate; correct me,
>> if I'm wrong about the following. Basically, 'tb_invalidated_flag' was
>> meant to catch two events:
>>  * some TB has been invalidated by tb_phys_invalidate();
> This is patch 4.
>>  * the whole translation buffer has been flushed by tb_flush().
> This is patch 5.
>> Then it is checked to ensure:
>>  * the last executed TB can be safely patched to directly call the next
>>    one in cpu_exec();
>>  * the original TB should be provided for further possible invalidation
>>    along with the temporarily generated TB when in cpu_exec_nocache().
>> [...] I would suggest the following solution:
>>  (1) Use 'tb->pc' as an indicator of whether TB is valid; check for it
>>      in cpu_exec() when deciding on whether to patch the last executed
>>      TB or not
>>  (2) Use 'tcg_ctx.tb_ctx.tb_flush_count' to check for translation buffer
>>      flushes; capture it before calling tb_gen_code() and compare to it
>>      afterwards to check if tb_flush() has been called in between
> Of course that would work, but it would be slower.  

What's going to be slower?

> I think it is
> unnecessary for two reasons:
> 1) There are two calls to cpu_exec_nocache.  One exits immediately with
> "break;", the other always sets "next_tb = 0;".  Therefore it is safe in
> both cases for cpu_exec_nocache to hijack cpu->tb_invalidated_flag.
> 2) if it were broken, it would _also_ be broken before these patches
> because cpu_exec_nocache always runs with tb_lock taken.  

I can't see how cpu_exec_nocache() always runs with tb_lock taken.

> So I think
> documenting the assumptions is better than changing them at the same
> time as doing other changes.

I'm not sure I understand you here exactly, but if implementing my
proposal, it'd rather be a separate patch/series, I think.

> Your observation that tb->pc==-1 is not necessarily safe still holds of
> course.  Probably the best thing is an inline that can do one of:
> 1) set cs_base to an invalid value (anything nonzero is enough except on
> x86 and SPARC; SPARC can use all-ones)
> 2) sets the flags to an invalid combination (x86 can use all ones)
> 3) sets the PC to an invalid value (no one really needs it)

It's a bit tricky. Does it really worth doing so instead of using a
separate dedicated flag? Mainly, it should cost one extra compare on TB
look-up. I suppose it's a kind of trade-off between performance and code

Kind regards,

reply via email to

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