qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 5/5] target/riscv: Add pointer mask support for instruction f


From: liweiwei
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] target/riscv: Add pointer mask support for instruction fetch
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 11:14:27 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0


On 2023/3/28 10:31, LIU Zhiwei wrote:

On 2023/3/28 9:55, liweiwei wrote:

On 2023/3/28 02:04, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 3/27/23 03:00, Weiwei Li wrote:
@@ -1248,6 +1265,10 @@ bool riscv_cpu_tlb_fill(CPUState *cs, vaddr address, int size,
      qemu_log_mask(CPU_LOG_MMU, "%s ad %" VADDR_PRIx " rw %d mmu_idx %d\n",
                    __func__, address, access_type, mmu_idx);
  +    if (access_type == MMU_INST_FETCH) {
+        address = adjust_pc_address(env, address);
+    }

Why do you want to do this so late, as opposed to earlier in cpu_get_tb_cpu_state?

In this way, the pc for tb may be different from the reg pc.
I don't understand.
Then the pc register will be wrong if sync from tb.

I think you should give an explain here why it is wrong.

Zhiwei

Assume the pc is 0x1fff 0000, pmmask is 0xf000 0000, if we adjust pc in  cpu_get_tb_cpu_state,

then the tb->pc will be 0x0fff 0000.

If we sync pc from tb by riscv_cpu_synchronize_from_tb()

Then the pc will be updated to 0x0fff 0000 in this case, which will different from the original value.

I ignore many internal steps in above case. Any critical condition I missed? or any misunderstood?

Regards,

Weiwei Li



Regards,

Weiwei Li



r~

reply via email to

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