From: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
"Emilio G. Cota" <cota@braap.org>,
peter.maydell@linaro.org, edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com>,
"open list\:ARM" <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/aarch64: exit to main loop after handling MSR
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:35:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9tqiw6g.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f185840b-5390-7df7-2450-f846f6af8a84@redhat.com>
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> On 14/06/2017 14:14, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> Then Emilio's patch, if a bit of a heavy hammer, is correct. After
>>> aa64_daif_write needs you need an exit_tb so that arm_cpu_exec_interrupt
>>> is executed again.
>>
>> This is a case of cpu->interrupt_request being pending but not having
>> set cpu->icount_decr yet to signal the exit.
>
> Rather than "yet", "anymore". So far it has always been an invariant
> that anything that re-enabled an interrupt had to do exit_tb.
>
>> Wouldn't another approach
>> (that didn't involve futzing with each front-end) to be to check
>> cpu->interrupt_request and force the exit in lookup_tb_ptr?
>
> That would cause an unnecessary slowdown in code that runs with
> interrupts disabled but does a lot of indirect jumps... ppc's SLOF
> firmware probably qualifies.
Really? I'd have to measure the change it makes. Is there a benchmark
stanza for measuring the PPC slof firmware time?
I have 3 patches now which all fix the same thing so we can pick and
choose which we should apply. Patches incoming...
--
Alex Bennée
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
"Emilio G. Cota" <cota@braap.org>,
peter.maydell@linaro.org, edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com,
qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
Peter Crosthwaite <crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com>,
"open list:ARM" <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/aarch64: exit to main loop after handling MSR
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 13:35:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9tqiw6g.fsf@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f185840b-5390-7df7-2450-f846f6af8a84@redhat.com>
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> writes:
> On 14/06/2017 14:14, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> Then Emilio's patch, if a bit of a heavy hammer, is correct. After
>>> aa64_daif_write needs you need an exit_tb so that arm_cpu_exec_interrupt
>>> is executed again.
>>
>> This is a case of cpu->interrupt_request being pending but not having
>> set cpu->icount_decr yet to signal the exit.
>
> Rather than "yet", "anymore". So far it has always been an invariant
> that anything that re-enabled an interrupt had to do exit_tb.
>
>> Wouldn't another approach
>> (that didn't involve futzing with each front-end) to be to check
>> cpu->interrupt_request and force the exit in lookup_tb_ptr?
>
> That would cause an unnecessary slowdown in code that runs with
> interrupts disabled but does a lot of indirect jumps... ppc's SLOF
> firmware probably qualifies.
Really? I'd have to measure the change it makes. Is there a benchmark
stanza for measuring the PPC slof firmware time?
I have 3 patches now which all fix the same thing so we can pick and
choose which we should apply. Patches incoming...
--
Alex Bennée
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-14 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-09 17:00 [Qemu-devel] [RFC DEBUG PATCH 0/3] debug patch for lookup-ptr hang Alex Bennée
2017-06-09 17:00 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC DEBUG PATCH 1/3] vl: Fix broken thread=xxx option of the --accel parameter Alex Bennée
2017-06-09 17:00 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC DEBUG PATCH 2/3] tcg-runtime: light re-factor of lookup_tb_ptr Alex Bennée
2017-06-09 17:01 ` [RFC DEBUG PATCH 3/3] translate-a64: fix lookup_tb_ptr hang (DEBUG!) Alex Bennée
2017-06-09 17:01 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alex Bennée
2017-06-10 2:29 ` Richard Henderson
2017-06-10 2:29 ` [Qemu-devel] " Richard Henderson
2017-06-10 8:51 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-10 8:51 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alex Bennée
2017-06-10 16:59 ` Richard Henderson
2017-06-10 16:59 ` [Qemu-devel] " Richard Henderson
2017-06-11 5:07 ` Emilio G. Cota
2017-06-11 5:07 ` [Qemu-devel] " Emilio G. Cota
2017-06-12 10:31 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-12 10:31 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alex Bennée
2017-06-13 22:53 ` [PATCH] target/aarch64: exit to main loop after handling MSR Emilio G. Cota
2017-06-13 22:53 ` [Qemu-devel] " Emilio G. Cota
2017-06-13 23:01 ` no-reply
2017-06-14 4:48 ` Richard Henderson
2017-06-14 4:48 ` [Qemu-devel] " Richard Henderson
2017-06-14 10:46 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 10:46 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 11:45 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-14 11:45 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alex Bennée
2017-06-14 12:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 12:02 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 12:14 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-14 12:14 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alex Bennée
2017-06-14 12:16 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 12:16 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 12:35 ` Alex Bennée [this message]
2017-06-14 12:35 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-14 12:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 12:43 ` [Qemu-devel] " Paolo Bonzini
2017-06-14 10:38 ` Alex Bennée
2017-06-14 10:38 ` [Qemu-devel] " Alex Bennée
2017-06-09 21:11 ` [Qemu-devel] [RFC DEBUG PATCH 0/3] debug patch for lookup-ptr hang no-reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87o9tqiw6g.fsf@linaro.org \
--to=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=cota@braap.org \
--cc=crosthwaite.peter@gmail.com \
--cc=edgar.iglesias@xilinx.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.