From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b5v2m-0000w6-5k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:09:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b5v2h-0001ry-2i for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:09:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]:38868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b5v2f-0001rs-Ub for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 26 May 2016 09:09:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n129so99238901wmn.1 for ; Thu, 26 May 2016 06:09:37 -0700 (PDT) References: <1459870344-16773-1-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <1459870344-16773-8-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <5746D81C.8030506@gmail.com> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: <5746D81C.8030506@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:10:15 +0100 Message-ID: <87oa7tc6dk.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC v2 07/11] tcg: cpus rm tcg_exec_all() List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Sergey Fedorov Cc: mttcg@listserver.greensocs.com, fred.konrad@greensocs.com, a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com, cota@braap.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mark.burton@greensocs.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, rth@twiddle.net, peter.maydell@linaro.org, claudio.fontana@huawei.com, Peter Crosthwaite Sergey Fedorov writes: > On 05/04/16 18:32, Alex Bennée wrote: >> diff --git a/cpus.c b/cpus.c >> index e118fdf..46732a5 100644 >> --- a/cpus.c >> +++ b/cpus.c > (snip) >> @@ -1109,7 +1108,7 @@ static void *qemu_dummy_cpu_thread_fn(void *arg) >> #endif >> } >> >> -static void tcg_exec_all(void); >> +static int tcg_cpu_exec(CPUState *cpu); > > Why don't just move tcg_cpu_exec() here and avoid this forward > declaration. Such forward declarations of static functions are a bit > annoying :) Sounds like a plan. > >> >> static void *qemu_tcg_cpu_thread_fn(void *arg) >> { >> @@ -1140,8 +1139,35 @@ static void *qemu_tcg_cpu_thread_fn(void *arg) >> /* process any pending work */ >> atomic_mb_set(&exit_request, 1); >> >> + cpu = first_cpu; >> + >> while (1) { >> - tcg_exec_all(); >> + /* Account partial waits to QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL. */ >> + qemu_account_warp_timer(); >> + >> + if (!cpu) { >> + cpu = first_cpu; >> + } >> + >> + for (; cpu != NULL && !exit_request; cpu = CPU_NEXT(cpu)) { > > Maybe a "while" cycle would be a bit neater here, like: > > while (cpu != NULL && !exit_request) { > /* ... */ > cpu = CPU_NEXT(cpu); > } Yeah, I prefer the while to non-standard for loops. > > >> + >> + qemu_clock_enable(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL, >> + (cpu->singlestep_enabled & SSTEP_NOTIMER) == 0); >> + >> + if (cpu_can_run(cpu)) { >> + int r = tcg_cpu_exec(cpu); >> + if (r == EXCP_DEBUG) { >> + cpu_handle_guest_debug(cpu); >> + break; >> + } >> + } else if (cpu->stop || cpu->stopped) { >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + } /* for cpu.. */ >> + >> + /* Pairs with smp_wmb in qemu_cpu_kick. */ > > While at it, we could also fix this comment like this: > > /* Pairs with atomic_mb_read() in cpu_exec(). */ Will do. > >> + atomic_mb_set(&exit_request, 0); >> >> if (use_icount) { >> int64_t deadline = qemu_clock_deadline_ns_all(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL); > > Kind regards, > Sergey Thanks, -- Alex Bennée