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

[Sergey Fedorov]

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 :)

Kind regards,
Sergey