From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KMAj0-0007jD-Id
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:59:58 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KMAiy-0007iU-Az
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:59:57 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56028 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KMAiy-0007iR-5D
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:59:56 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:57131)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1KMAix-0007r6-BM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:59:56 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Weird behavior while using the instruction counter
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:59:47 +0100
References: <3e1533500807240342s15e6e508kd1d49152b0892e9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<200807241702.56609.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<3e1533500807241058p4b8c3011r31a426a726b622d3@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e1533500807241058p4b8c3011r31a426a726b622d3@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200807250059.47619.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Luis Pureza <pureza@student.dei.uc.pt>

> One last try then... Would the invalidation of the original TB by
> cpu_exec_nocache() solve the problem (despite being terribly
> inefficient)?

Yes.

Paul