[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Sergey Fedorov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] tcg: rework tb_invalidated_flag
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:35:55 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0

On 18/04/16 20:51, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> 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 :)

It's not so simple because tb_find_fast() is also called in replay mode
to find a TB for cpu_exec_nocache()... I'm not sure it's worth touching
it now. Although it may be possible to improve the code structure of
cpu_exec() in some other way. (It's really scary, indeed.) Actually,
I've been keeping that in mind for some time. Do you think if MTTCG
would benefit from some cpu_exec() refactoring to make it more clear and
easy to understand?

Kind regards,

reply via email to

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