[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/arm: Correct load/store exclusive pairin
From: |
Alistair Francis |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/arm: Correct load/store exclusive pairing and alignment |
Date: |
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 09:29:47 -0700 |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Richard Henderson <address@hidden> wrote:
> SetExclusiveMonitors in the pseudocode is on the address + width,
> and says nothing about the manner of the load. Therefore
>
> ldxp w0, w1, [x2]
> vs
> ldxr x0, [x2]
>
> must record the same metadata so that either may pair with
>
> stxp w3, w0, w1, [x2]
> vs
> stxr w3, x0, [x2]
>
> Fix this by ignoring cpu_exclusive_high except for 64-bit LDXP/STXP.
>
> Also note that we were not providing the required single-copy atomic
> semantics for 32-bit LDXP. This is trivially fixed alongside the
> cpu_exclusive_val change.
>
> At the same time, exclusive loads require the same alignment as
> exclusive stores. For 64-bit LDXP, this means adding MO_ALIGN_16;
> for the others adding MO_ALIGN.
>
> Reported-by: Alistair Francis <address@hidden>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
> ---
> target/arm/translate-a64.c | 65
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> ---
>
> I have not yet constructed test cases for all of the combinations
> listed above. I wanted to put this into your hands so that you could
> test against your existing code using LDXP/STXP.
I can test it on Monday when I'm back in the office. I'll let you know
what I find.
>
>
> r~
>
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/translate-a64.c b/target/arm/translate-a64.c
> index 58ed4c6d05..f3643ac8dc 100644
> --- a/target/arm/translate-a64.c
> +++ b/target/arm/translate-a64.c
> @@ -1853,29 +1853,45 @@ static void disas_b_exc_sys(DisasContext *s, uint32_t
> insn)
> static void gen_load_exclusive(DisasContext *s, int rt, int rt2,
> TCGv_i64 addr, int size, bool is_pair)
> {
> - TCGv_i64 tmp = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> - TCGMemOp memop = s->be_data + size;
> + int idx = get_mem_index(s);
> + TCGMemOp memop = s->be_data;
>
> g_assert(size <= 3);
> - tcg_gen_qemu_ld_i64(tmp, addr, get_mem_index(s), memop);
> -
> if (is_pair) {
> - TCGv_i64 addr2 = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> - TCGv_i64 hitmp = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> -
> g_assert(size >= 2);
> - tcg_gen_addi_i64(addr2, addr, 1 << size);
> - tcg_gen_qemu_ld_i64(hitmp, addr2, get_mem_index(s), memop);
> - tcg_temp_free_i64(addr2);
> - tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_exclusive_high, hitmp);
> - tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt2), hitmp);
> - tcg_temp_free_i64(hitmp);
> - }
> + if (size == 2) {
> + /* The pair must be single-copy atomic for the doubleword. */
> + memop |= MO_64 | MO_ALIGN;
> + tcg_gen_qemu_ld_i64(cpu_exclusive_val, addr, idx, memop);
> + if (s->be_data == MO_LE) {
> + tcg_gen_extract_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt), cpu_exclusive_val, 0,
> 32);
> + tcg_gen_extract_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt2), cpu_exclusive_val, 32,
> 32);
> + } else {
> + tcg_gen_extract_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt), cpu_exclusive_val, 32,
> 32);
> + tcg_gen_extract_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt2), cpu_exclusive_val, 0,
> 32);
> + }
> + } else {
> + /* The pair must be single-copy atomic for *each* doubleword,
> + but not the entire quadword. It must, however, be aligned.
> */
> + TCGv_i64 addr2;
>
> - tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_exclusive_val, tmp);
> - tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt), tmp);
> + memop |= MO_64;
> + tcg_gen_qemu_ld_i64(cpu_exclusive_val, addr, idx,
> + memop | MO_ALIGN_16);
>
> - tcg_temp_free_i64(tmp);
> + addr2 = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> + tcg_gen_addi_i64(addr2, addr, 8);
> + tcg_gen_qemu_ld_i64(cpu_exclusive_high, addr2, idx, memop);
> + tcg_temp_free_i64(addr2);
> +
> + tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt), cpu_exclusive_val);
> + tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt2), cpu_exclusive_high);
> + }
> + } else {
> + memop |= size | MO_ALIGN;
> + tcg_gen_qemu_ld_i64(cpu_exclusive_val, addr, idx, memop);
> + tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_reg(s, rt), cpu_exclusive_val);
> + }
> tcg_gen_mov_i64(cpu_exclusive_addr, addr);
> }
>
> @@ -1908,14 +1924,15 @@ static void gen_store_exclusive(DisasContext *s, int
> rd, int rt, int rt2,
> tmp = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> if (is_pair) {
> if (size == 2) {
> - TCGv_i64 val = tcg_temp_new_i64();
> - tcg_gen_concat32_i64(tmp, cpu_reg(s, rt), cpu_reg(s, rt2));
> - tcg_gen_concat32_i64(val, cpu_exclusive_val, cpu_exclusive_high);
> - tcg_gen_atomic_cmpxchg_i64(tmp, addr, val, tmp,
> + if (s->be_data == MO_LE) {
> + tcg_gen_concat32_i64(tmp, cpu_reg(s, rt), cpu_reg(s, rt2));
> + } else {
> + tcg_gen_concat32_i64(tmp, cpu_reg(s, rt2), cpu_reg(s, rt));
> + }
> + tcg_gen_atomic_cmpxchg_i64(tmp, addr, cpu_exclusive_val, tmp,
> get_mem_index(s),
> - size | MO_ALIGN | s->be_data);
> - tcg_gen_setcond_i64(TCG_COND_NE, tmp, tmp, val);
> - tcg_temp_free_i64(val);
> + MO_64 | MO_ALIGN | s->be_data);
> + tcg_gen_setcond_i64(TCG_COND_NE, tmp, tmp, cpu_exclusive_val);
Now we aren't ever checking cpu_exclusive_high. Is it even worth having?
Otherwise the patch looks good, let me test it next week and I'll get
back to you.
Thanks,
Alistair
> } else if (s->be_data == MO_LE) {
> gen_helper_paired_cmpxchg64_le(tmp, cpu_env, addr, cpu_reg(s,
> rt),
> cpu_reg(s, rt2));
> --
> 2.13.4
>
>