Re: [PATCH v11 02/14] accel: collecting TB execution count

[Richard Henderson]

On 4/21/23 14:24, Fei Wu wrote:
> From: "Vanderson M. do Rosario" <vandersonmr2@gmail.com>
>
> If a TB has a TBS (TBStatistics) with the TB_EXEC_STATS
> enabled, then we instrument the start code of this TB
> to atomically count the number of times it is executed.
> We count both the number of "normal" executions and atomic
> executions of a TB.
>
> The execution count of the TB is stored in its respective
> TBS.
>
> All TBStatistics are created by default with the flags from
> default_tbstats_flag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vanderson M. do Rosario <vandersonmr2@gmail.com>
> Message-Id: <20190829173437.5926-3-vandersonmr2@gmail.com>
> [AJB: Fix author]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> ---
>   accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c      |  6 ++++++
>   accel/tcg/tb-stats.c      |  6 ++++++
>   accel/tcg/tcg-runtime.c   |  8 ++++++++
>   accel/tcg/tcg-runtime.h   |  2 ++
>   accel/tcg/translate-all.c |  7 +++++--
>   accel/tcg/translator.c    | 10 ++++++++++
>   include/exec/gen-icount.h |  1 +
>   include/exec/tb-stats.h   | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>   8 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> index c815f2dbfd..d89f9fe493 100644
> --- a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> +++ b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>   #include "trace.h"
>   #include "disas/disas.h"
>   #include "exec/exec-all.h"
> +#include "exec/tb-stats.h"
>   #include "tcg/tcg.h"
>   #include "qemu/atomic.h"
>   #include "qemu/rcu.h"
> @@ -564,7 +565,12 @@ void cpu_exec_step_atomic(CPUState *cpu)
>               mmap_unlock();
>           }
>   
> +        if (tb_stats_enabled(tb, TB_EXEC_STATS)) {
> +            tb->tb_stats->executions.atomic++;
> +        }

The write is protected by the exclusive lock, but the read might be accessible from the 
monitor, iiuc.  Which means you should use atomic_set(), for non-tearable write after 
non-atomic increment.

> @@ -148,3 +149,10 @@ void HELPER(exit_atomic)(CPUArchState *env)
>   {
>       cpu_loop_exit_atomic(env_cpu(env), GETPC());
>   }
> +
> +void HELPER(inc_exec_freq)(void *ptr)
> +{
> +    TBStatistics *stats = (TBStatistics *) ptr;
> +    tcg_debug_assert(stats);
> +    qatomic_inc(&stats->executions.normal);
> +}

Ug.  Do we really need an atomic update?

If we have multiple threads executing through the same TB, we'll get significant slow-down 
at the cost of not missing increments.  If we allow a non-atomic update, we'll get much 
less slow-down at the cost of missing a few increments.  But this is statistical only, so 
how much does it really matter?


r~