From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55460) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3Uuy-0005nL-AW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:56:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d3Uux-0000eo-IJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:56:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:56:04 -0400 From: "Emilio G. Cota" Message-ID: <20170426215604.GA16014@flamenco> References: <1493187803-4510-1-git-send-email-cota@braap.org> <1493187803-4510-2-git-send-email-cota@braap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/10] tcg-runtime: add lookup_tb_ptr helper List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Peter Crosthwaite , Peter Maydell , Eduardo Habkost , Andrzej Zaborowski , Aurelien Jarno , Alexander Graf , Stefan Weil , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, alex.bennee@linaro.org, Pranith Kumar On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:40:45 +0200, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 04/26/2017 08:23 AM, Emilio G. Cota wrote: (snip) > >+ cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(env, &pc, &cs_base, &flags); > >+ tb = atomic_rcu_read(&cpu->tb_jmp_cache[tb_jmp_cache_hash_func(addr)]); > >+ if (likely(tb && tb->pc == addr && tb->cs_base == cs_base && > >+ tb->flags == flags)) { > > This comparison is wrong. It will incorrectly reject a TB for i386 guest > when CS_BASE != 0. You really want > > tb = atomic_rcu_read(&cpu->tb_jmp_cache[tb_jmp_cache_hash_func(addr)]); > if (tb) { > cpu_get_tb_cpu_state(env, &pc, &cs_base, &flags); > if (tb->pc == pc && tb->cs_base == cs_base && tb->flags == flags) { > return tb->tc_ptr; > } > } > return tcg_ctx.code_gen_epilogue; wrt the comparison, the only change I notice in your suggested change is tb->pc == pc instead of tb->pc == addr , which seems innocuous to me (since tb->pc == addr). I fail to see how this relates to your "CS_BASE != 0" comment. What am I missing? E.