Re: [PATCH v2] virtio: Add aligned ld/st accessors for vring

["BillXiang" <xiangwencheng@lanxincomputing.com>]

On 8/22/2026 1:32 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 8/21/26 03:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> I'm tempted to suggest some kind of "if pointer is aligned take
>> aligned path, otherwise take slow path" either here or actually
>> in lduw_le_p(), but maybe that's a bad idea. Richard ?
>>
>> (I have a suspicion that other places than this one will assume
>> that an aligned ldl_he_p() is not going to tear.)
> I agree -- I expect most everything assumes ldl_he_p won't tear for 
> aligned accesses.

Hi Peter, I noticed that in your commit [1], you have pointed out that 
ld*_he_p() and st*_he_p() is not atomic especially for vring_avail_idx.
This suggests it’s time to finally implement the atomic functions. And 
I think we should provide explicit atomic operations, similar to those 
in CPU instruction sets, rather than a single all‑purpose function 
cluttered with conditional branches — and it should be the caller’s 
responsibility to decide whether to use them.

> 
> This kinda begs the question of what atomicity the caller expects.  It's 
> not implausible that an x86 path expects even unaligned accesses not 
> crossing a cacheline to be atomic, since that's been a thing since 
> 1995.  I expect both IBM architectures similarly expect atomicity by 
> alignment, since that's been a thing for s390 since yonks and Power has 
> the same language.
> 
> We have a bunch of code in accel/tcg/ldst_atomicity.c.inc that can 
> handle this, we'd just need to provide it with the correct inputs.  And 
> I assume we'd still like to inline the single access on appropriate hosts.
> 
> 
> r~

Hi Richard, I've read your code in accel/tcg/ldst_atomicity.c.inc. Do 
you think it would be better to make the load/store_atomic* public?

--
Bill Xiang

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/1554826986-37164-4-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com/#r