From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42432) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBKZa-0007Lq-QL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:49:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBKZW-00035N-Ve for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:49:10 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]:52982) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YBKZW-00035J-LV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 04:49:06 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id p10so7687072wes.9 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 01:49:06 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <54B63B8E.5010708@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:49:02 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20150112115944.3504.66763.stgit@PASHA-ISP> <20150112120032.3504.11086.stgit@PASHA-ISP> <54B3BF3B.7020403@redhat.com> <001301d02e64$f192c740$d4b855c0$@Dovgaluk@ispras.ru> <54B3C404.4050603@redhat.com> <3141.42739302969$1421226482@news.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <3141.42739302969$1421226482@news.gmane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v7 08/21] replay: interrupts and exceptions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Pavel Dovgaluk , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, real@ispras.ru, batuzovk@ispras.ru, maria.klimushenkova@ispras.ru, alex.bennee@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de, fred.konrad@greensocs.com On 14/01/2015 10:07, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote: >> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini@redhat.com] >> On 12/01/2015 13:40, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps check the replay_interrupt() outside, in an && with "if >>>>> (unlikely(interrupt_request))"? >>> You mean that I should wrap whole condition into "unlikely"? >>> >> >> No, I wanted to have a single check of "replay_interrupt()" and/or >> "replay_has_interrupt()". >> >> BTW, I think this is incorrect: >> >>> + if ((replay_mode != REPLAY_MODE_PLAY >>> + || replay_has_interrupt()) >>> + && cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) { >>> + replay_interrupt(); >> >> because cc->cpu_exec_interrupt() can exit with cpu_loop_exit(cpu). > > Haven't found any. Do you have an example? Yes: cpu_svm_check_intercept_param -> helper_svm_check_intercept_param -> helper_vmexit -> cpu_loop_exit >> if (replay_mode == REPLAY_MODE_PLAY && !replay_has_interrupt()) { >> /* do nothing */ >> } else if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HALT) { >> replay_interrupt(); >> ... >> cpu_loop_exit(cpu); >> } else if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_INIT) { >> replay_interrupt(); >> ... >> cpu_loop_exit(cpu); >> } else { >> replay_interrupt(); >> if (cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) { >> next_tb = 0; >> } >> } > > Is it normal that processing of the reset request does not execute cpu_loop_exit(cpu)? I think it is okay. INIT executes cpu_loop_exit() on x86 because processors other than the boot processor are halted after they receive INIT. Paolo