qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw/riscv/virt.c: fix non-KVM --enable-debug build


From: Daniel Henrique Barboza
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] hw/riscv/virt.c: fix non-KVM --enable-debug build
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 06:34:50 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0



On 8/29/23 22:26, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 8/29/23 16:51, Daniel Henrique Barboza wrote:
The compiler certainly does eliminate 0 && foo(), even at -O0.

There must be something else going on.
Pointer to your tree?

It's this tree:

https://github.com/alistair23/qemu/tree/riscv-to-apply.next


Ok, so while -O0 will eliminate 0 && foo(), it doesn't eliminate with bar() && 
foo(), where bar must be inlined (multiple times in this case) to find the 0.

Moreover in the case of

/usr/bin/ld: libqemu-riscv64-softmmu.fa.p/hw_intc_riscv_aplic.c.o: in function 
`riscv_kvm_aplic_request':
/home/danielhb/work/qemu/build/../hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c:486: undefined 
reference to `kvm_set_irq'

this one, where foo (aka riscv_kvm_aplic_request) would have to be eliminated 
as well. But the compiler won't eliminate entire unused functions with -O0.

This seems to do the trick.  Whether it is aesthetically better than what you 
had with your patches, I will leave to someone else.


r~


diff --git a/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c b/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c
index 592c3ce768..0e22dcaf8a 100644
--- a/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c
+++ b/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c
@@ -481,10 +481,14 @@ static uint32_t riscv_aplic_idc_claimi(RISCVAPLICState 
*aplic, uint32_t idc)
      return topi;
  }

+#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
  static void riscv_kvm_aplic_request(void *opaque, int irq, int level)
  {
      kvm_set_irq(kvm_state, irq, !!level);
  }
+#else
+#define riscv_kvm_aplic_request  ({ qemu_build_not_reached(); NULL; })
+#endif

  static void riscv_aplic_request(void *opaque, int irq, int level)
  {
diff --git a/hw/riscv/virt.c b/hw/riscv/virt.c
index 388e52a294..b787ae38c2 100644
--- a/hw/riscv/virt.c
+++ b/hw/riscv/virt.c
@@ -782,7 +782,7 @@ static void create_fdt_sockets(RISCVVirtState *s, const 
MemMapEntry *memmap,
      }

      /* KVM AIA only has one APLIC instance */
-    if (virt_use_kvm_aia(s)) {
+    if (kvm_enabled() && virt_use_kvm_aia(s)) {
          create_fdt_socket_aplic(s, memmap, 0,
                                  msi_m_phandle, msi_s_phandle, phandle,
                                  &intc_phandles[0], xplic_phandles,
@@ -1461,7 +1461,7 @@ static void virt_machine_init(MachineState *machine)
          }
      }

-    if (virt_use_kvm_aia(s)) {
+    if (kvm_enabled() && virt_use_kvm_aia(s)) {
          kvm_riscv_aia_create(machine, IMSIC_MMIO_GROUP_MIN_SHIFT,
                               VIRT_IRQCHIP_NUM_SOURCES, VIRT_IRQCHIP_NUM_MSIS,
                               memmap[VIRT_APLIC_S].base,


I'll leave to Alistair to decide, both seems good to me.


TBH I'm bothered why this doesn't work:


diff --git a/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c b/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c
index 592c3ce768..251e08ddc4 100644
--- a/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c
+++ b/hw/intc/riscv_aplic.c
@@ -839,12 +839,16 @@ static void riscv_aplic_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error 
**errp)
      * Only root APLICs have hardware IRQ lines. All non-root APLICs
      * have IRQ lines delegated by their parent APLIC.
      */
-    if (!aplic->parent) {
-        if (is_kvm_aia(aplic->msimode)) {
-            qdev_init_gpio_in(dev, riscv_kvm_aplic_request, aplic->num_irqs);
-        } else {
-            qdev_init_gpio_in(dev, riscv_aplic_request, aplic->num_irqs);
+    if (kvm_enabled()) {
+        if (!aplic->parent) {
+            if (is_kvm_aia(aplic->msimode)) {
+                qdev_init_gpio_in(dev, riscv_kvm_aplic_request, 
aplic->num_irqs);
+            } else {
+                qdev_init_gpio_in(dev, riscv_aplic_request, aplic->num_irqs);
+            }
         }
+    } else if (!aplic->parent) {
+        qdev_init_gpio_in(dev, riscv_aplic_request, aplic->num_irqs);
     }

Why is the compiler refusing to crop an "if kvm_enabled()" block? There's no 
other
conditionals to handle, and it is able to crop "if (kvm_enabled() && 
virt_use_kvm_aia(s))".

Is this solely because riscv_kvm_aplic_request() will be an unused function if 
the crop
happens and, as you said above, "the compiler won't eliminate entire unused 
functions with
-O0"?



Thanks,

Daniel



reply via email to

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