qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH] target/ppc: Implement ISA v3.1 wait variants


From: Nicholas Piggin
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/ppc: Implement ISA v3.1 wait variants
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:19:06 +1000

Excerpts from David Gibson's message of May 17, 2021 3:39 pm:
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 12:46:51PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> ISA v3.1 adds new variations of wait, specified by the WC field. These
>> are not compatible with the wait 0 implementation, because they add
>> additional conditions that cause the processor to resume, which can
>> cause software to hang or run very slowly.
>> 
>> Add the new wait variants with a trivial no-op implementation, which is
>> allowed, as explained in comments: software must not depend on any
>> particular architected WC condition having caused resumption of
>> execution, therefore a no-op implementation is architecturally correct.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> 
> Logic looks fine.  There is no test on the CPU's features or model
> here, though, so this will change behaviour for pre-3.1 CPUs as well.

Huh. 2.06-2.07 has very similar WC bits as 3.1, but 3.0 removed them
and made them reserved. I should have looked back but I'd assumed
they weren't there either.

Existing code treats WC != 0 as invalid on pre-3.0 processors AFAIKS,
so that's not quite right for 2.06-7 (they should look more like 3.1).

But before that it looks like it was just wait with no WC field.

> What would invoking these wait variants (presumably reserved) on
> earlier CPUs do?

Prior to 2.06, it looks like there is no WC field, and so they should 
generate a program check. So that just leaves the incorrect program
checks for 2.06-7, something like this should do it:

-GEN_HANDLER_E(wait, 0x1F, 0x1E, 0x00, 0x039FF801, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ISA300),
+GEN_HANDLER_E(wait, 0x1F, 0x1E, 0x00, 0x039FF801, PPC_NONE, PPC2_ISA206),

2.06-3.1 should all be fine with this patch, AFAIKS they all have words 
to the effect that WC != 0 is subject to implementation defined 
behaviour and may be treated as a no-op or not implemented.

Thanks,
Nick




reply via email to

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