qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] accel/tcg: Use CF_NO_GOTO_{TB, PTR} in cpu_exec_ste


From: Richard Henderson
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/10] accel/tcg: Use CF_NO_GOTO_{TB, PTR} in cpu_exec_step_atomic
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 12:03:22 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0

On 7/17/21 10:43 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 16:46, Richard Henderson
<richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:

Request that the one TB returns immediately, so that
we release the exclusive lock as soon as possible.

Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
---
  accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c | 11 ++++++++---
  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
index 2206c463f5..5bb099174f 100644
--- a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
@@ -330,8 +330,7 @@ void cpu_exec_step_atomic(CPUState *cpu)
      CPUArchState *env = (CPUArchState *)cpu->env_ptr;
      TranslationBlock *tb;
      target_ulong cs_base, pc;
-    uint32_t flags;
-    uint32_t cflags = (curr_cflags(cpu) & ~CF_PARALLEL) | 1;
+    uint32_t flags, cflags;
      int tb_exit;

      if (sigsetjmp(cpu->jmp_env, 0) == 0) {
@@ -341,8 +340,14 @@ void cpu_exec_step_atomic(CPUState *cpu)
          cpu->running = true;

          cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(env, &pc, &cs_base, &flags);
-        tb = tb_lookup(cpu, pc, cs_base, flags, cflags);

+        cflags = curr_cflags(cpu);
+        /* Execute in a serial context. */
+        cflags &= ~CF_PARALLEL;
+        /* After 1 insn, return and release the exclusive lock. */
+        cflags |= CF_NO_GOTO_TB | CF_NO_GOTO_PTR | 1;
+
+        tb = tb_lookup(cpu, pc, cs_base, flags, cflags);
          if (tb == NULL) {
              mmap_lock();
              tb = tb_gen_code(cpu, pc, cs_base, flags, cflags);

So previously we would have executed possibly a chain of TBs
before releasing the lock, and now we definitely execute just one?

Correct.

(I guess the execute-a-chain case is unlikely given the TB
only has one insn and we know it's an exclusive insn...)

I think it's actually likely. While the tb would definitely end after one insn, we had passed nothing down that would lead to returning to the main loop.


r~


Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>

thanks
-- PMM





reply via email to

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