Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] tcg: rework tb_invalidated_flag

[Sergey Fedorov]

On 22/04/16 00:54, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Sergey Fedorov <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On 21/04/16 19:16, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>>> On 21/04/16 18:55, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>> Sergey Fedorov <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 18/04/16 20:51, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/04/16 20:17, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>>>>> Sergey Fedorov <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 18/04/16 17:09, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sergey Fedorov <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
>>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -507,14 +510,12 @@ int cpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
>>>>>>>>>>                  }
>>>>>>>>>>                  tb_lock();
>>>>>>>>>>                  tb = tb_find_fast(cpu);
>>>>>>>>>> -                /* Note: we do it here to avoid a gcc bug on Mac OS 
>>>>>>>>>> X when
>>>>>>>>>> -                   doing it in tb_find_slow */
>>>>>>>>> Is this still true? Would it make more sense to push the patching down
>>>>>>>>> to the gen_code?
>>>>>>>> This comment comes up to the commit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     commit 1538800276aa7228d74f9d00bf275f54dc9e9b43
>>>>>>>>     Author: bellard <address@hidden>
>>>>>>>>     Date:   Mon Dec 19 01:42:32 2005 +0000
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         workaround for gcc bug on PowerPC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was added more than ten years ago. Anyway, now this code is here not
>>>>>>>> because of the bug: we need to reset 'next_tb' which is a local 
>>>>>>>> variable
>>>>>>>> in cpu_exec(). Personally, I don't think it would be neater to hide it
>>>>>>>> into gen_code(). Do you have some thoughts on how we could benefit from
>>>>>>>> doing so? BTW, I had a feeling that it may be useful to reorganize
>>>>>>>> cpu_exec() a bit, although I don't have a solid idea of how to do this
>>>>>>>> so far.
>>>>>>> I'm mainly eyeing the tb_lock/unlock which would be nice to push further
>>>>>>> down the call chain if we can, especially if the need to lock
>>>>>>> tb_find_fast can be removed later on.
>>>>>> Yes, it would be nice to possibly have all tb_lock/unlock() calls (or at
>>>>>> least their pairs) in the same block. There is a lot to be thought over 
>>>>>> :)
>>>>> It's not so simple because tb_find_fast() is also called in replay mode
>>>>> to find a TB for cpu_exec_nocache()... I'm not sure it's worth touching
>>>>> it now.
>>>> If the locking is pushed into tb_find_fast or further down is this an
>>>> issue?
>>> We would have to pass 'next_tb' (or 'last_tb' and 'tb_exit' after
>>> cleaning it up) if we move TB chaining code to tb_find_fast(). But
>>> tb_find_fast() is also called in replay mode to find a TB for
>>> cpu_exec_nocache() where we don't bother with TB chaining... Do you
>>> think it would be fine to make those changes?
>> Are you thinking about something like this:
>>
>> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
>> index 1d12e8bc2739..07e9ede49193 100644
>> --- a/cpu-exec.c
>> +++ b/cpu-exec.c
>> @@ -320,7 +320,9 @@ found:
>>      return tb;
>>  }
>>
>> -static inline TranslationBlock *tb_find_fast(CPUState *cpu)
>> +static inline TranslationBlock *tb_find_fast(CPUState *cpu,
>> +                                             TranslationBlock **last_tb,
>> +                                             int tb_exit)
>>  {
>>      CPUArchState *env = (CPUArchState *)cpu->env_ptr;
>>      TranslationBlock *tb;
>> @@ -331,11 +333,27 @@ static inline TranslationBlock
>> *tb_find_fast(CPUState *cpu)
>>         always be the same before a given translated block
>>         is executed. */
>>      cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(env, &pc, &cs_base, &flags);
>> +    tb_lock();
>>      tb = cpu->tb_jmp_cache[tb_jmp_cache_hash_func(pc)];
>>      if (unlikely(!tb || tb->pc != pc || tb->cs_base != cs_base ||
>>                   tb->flags != flags)) {
>>          tb = tb_find_slow(cpu, pc, cs_base, flags);
>>      }
>> +    if (cpu->tb_flushed) {
>> +        /* Ensure that no TB jump will be modified as the
>> +         * translation buffer has been flushed.
>> +         */
>> +        *last_tb = NULL;
>> +        cpu->tb_flushed = false;
>> +    }
>> +    /* see if we can patch the calling TB. When the TB
>> +       spans two pages, we cannot safely do a direct
>> +       jump. */
>> +    if (*last_tb != NULL && tb->page_addr[1] == -1
>> +            && !qemu_loglevel_mask(CPU_LOG_TB_NOCHAIN)) {
>> +        tb_add_jump(*last_tb, tb_exit, tb);
>> +    }
>> +    tb_unlock();
>>      return tb;
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -441,7 +459,8 @@ int cpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
>>              } else if (replay_has_exception()
>>                         && cpu->icount_decr.u16.low + cpu->icount_extra
>> == 0) {
>>                  /* try to cause an exception pending in the log */
>> -                cpu_exec_nocache(cpu, 1, tb_find_fast(cpu), true);
>> +                last_tb = NULL; /* Avoid chaining TBs */
>> +                cpu_exec_nocache(cpu, 1, tb_find_fast(cpu, &last_tb,
>> 0), true);
>>                  ret = -1;
>>                  break;
>>  #endif
>> @@ -511,23 +530,7 @@ int cpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
>>                      cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
>>                      cpu_loop_exit(cpu);
>>                  }
>> -                tb_lock();
>> -                tb = tb_find_fast(cpu);
>> -                if (cpu->tb_flushed) {
>> -                    /* Ensure that no TB jump will be modified as the
>> -                     * translation buffer has been flushed.
>> -                     */
>> -                    last_tb = NULL;
>> -                    cpu->tb_flushed = false;
>> -                }
>> -                /* see if we can patch the calling TB. When the TB
>> -                   spans two pages, we cannot safely do a direct
>> -                   jump. */
>> -                if (last_tb != NULL && tb->page_addr[1] == -1
>> -                    && !qemu_loglevel_mask(CPU_LOG_TB_NOCHAIN)) {
>> -                    tb_add_jump(last_tb, tb_exit, tb);
>> -                }
>> -                tb_unlock();
>> +                tb = tb_find_fast(cpu, &last_tb, tb_exit);
>>                  if (likely(!cpu->exit_request)) {
>>                      uintptr_t ret;
>>                      trace_exec_tb(tb, tb->pc);
>>
>> ... right?
> Yeah that sort of thing.

Okay, I'll include this in the next respin.

Kind regards,
Sergey