Re: [PATCH 15/24] accel/tcg: Use interval tree for TBs in user-only mode

[Alex Bennée]

Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> writes:

> Begin weaning user-only away from PageDesc.
>
> Since, for user-only, all TB (and page) manipulation is done with
> a single mutex, and there is no virtual/physical discontinuity to
> split a TB across discontinuous pages, place all of the TBs into
> a single IntervalTree. This makes it trivial to find all of the
> TBs intersecting a range.
>
> Retain the existing PageDesc + linked list implementation for
> system mode.  Move the portion of the implementation that overlaps
> the new user-only code behind the common ifdef.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
> ---
>  accel/tcg/internal.h      |  16 +-
>  include/exec/exec-all.h   |  43 ++++-
>  accel/tcg/tb-maint.c      | 388 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  accel/tcg/translate-all.c |   4 +-
>  4 files changed, 280 insertions(+), 171 deletions(-)
>
<snip>
> diff --git a/accel/tcg/tb-maint.c b/accel/tcg/tb-maint.c
> index c8e921089d..14e8e47a6a 100644
> --- a/accel/tcg/tb-maint.c
> +++ b/accel/tcg/tb-maint.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>   */
>  
>  #include "qemu/osdep.h"
> +#include "qemu/interval-tree.h"
>  #include "exec/cputlb.h"
>  #include "exec/log.h"
>  #include "exec/exec-all.h"
> @@ -50,6 +51,75 @@ void tb_htable_init(void)
>      qht_init(&tb_ctx.htable, tb_cmp, CODE_GEN_HTABLE_SIZE, mode);
>  }

I wonder for the sake of avoiding recompilation of units later on and
having a clean separation between user and system mode it would be worth
putting this stuff in a tb-maint-user.c?

>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> +/*
> + * For user-only, since we are protecting all of memory with a single lock,
> + * and because the two pages of a TranslationBlock are always contiguous,
> + * use a single data structure to record all TranslationBlocks.
> + */
<snip>
> +
> +/*
> + * Called with mmap_lock held. If pc is not 0 then it indicates the
> + * host PC of the faulting store instruction that caused this invalidate.
> + * Returns true if the caller needs to abort execution of the current
> + * TB (because it was modified by this store and the guest CPU has
> + * precise-SMC semantics).
> + */
> +bool tb_invalidate_phys_page_unwind(tb_page_addr_t addr, uintptr_t pc)
> +{
> +    assert(pc != 0);
> +#ifdef TARGET_HAS_PRECISE_SMC
> +    assert_memory_lock();

Out of interest is this just because x86 has such a strong memory model
you can get away with this sort of patching without explicit flushes?
I'm curious why this is the only arch we jump through these hoops for?

> +    {
> +        TranslationBlock *current_tb = tcg_tb_lookup(pc);
> +        bool current_tb_modified = false;
> +        TranslationBlock *tb;
> +        PageForEachNext n;
> +
> +        addr &= TARGET_PAGE_MASK;
> +
> +        PAGE_FOR_EACH_TB(addr, addr + TARGET_PAGE_SIZE, unused, tb, n) {
> +            if (current_tb == tb &&
> +                (tb_cflags(current_tb) & CF_COUNT_MASK) != 1) {
> +                /*
> +                 * If we are modifying the current TB, we must stop its
> +                 * execution. We could be more precise by checking that
> +                 * the modification is after the current PC, but it would
> +                 * require a specialized function to partially restore
> +                 * the CPU state.
> +                 */
> +                current_tb_modified = true;
> +                cpu_restore_state_from_tb(current_cpu, current_tb, pc, true);
> +            }
> +            tb_phys_invalidate__locked(tb);
> +        }
> +
> +        if (current_tb_modified) {
> +            /* Force execution of one insn next time.  */
> +            CPUState *cpu = current_cpu;
> +            cpu->cflags_next_tb = 1 | CF_NOIRQ | curr_cflags(current_cpu);
> +            return true;
> +        }
> +    }
> +#else
> +    tb_invalidate_phys_page(addr);
> +#endif /* TARGET_HAS_PRECISE_SMC */
> +    return false;
> +}
> +#else
>  /*
>   * @p must be non-NULL.
>   * user-mode: call with mmap_lock held.
> @@ -492,22 +637,17 @@ tb_invalidate_phys_page_range__locked(struct 
> page_collection *pages,
>  {
>      TranslationBlock *tb;
>      tb_page_addr_t tb_start, tb_end;
> -    int n;
> +    PageForEachNext n;
>  #ifdef TARGET_HAS_PRECISE_SMC
> -    CPUState *cpu = current_cpu;
> -    bool current_tb_not_found = retaddr != 0;
>      bool current_tb_modified = false;
> -    TranslationBlock *current_tb = NULL;
> +    TranslationBlock *current_tb = retaddr ? tcg_tb_lookup(retaddr) : NULL;
>  #endif /* TARGET_HAS_PRECISE_SMC */
>  
> -    assert_page_locked(p);
> -
>      /*
>       * We remove all the TBs in the range [start, end[.
>       * XXX: see if in some cases it could be faster to invalidate all the 
> code
>       */

I'm guessing this comment is quite stale now given we try quite hard to
avoid doing lots of code gen over and over again. The only case I can
think of is memory clear routines after we've had code which there might
be some heuristics we could use to detect but don't currently.

<snip>

Otherwise:

Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>

-- 
Alex Bennée