From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
"QEMU Devel" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
mttcg@greensocs.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com,
fred.konrad@greensocs.com, "Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>,
"Peter Crosthwaite" <crosthwaitepeter@gmail.com>,
"Peter Maydell" <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Rationalising exit_request, cpu->exit_request and tcg_exit_req?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 18:21:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56719DAC.2030000@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zixafh89.fsf@linaro.org>
On 16/12/2015 18:14, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> While looking at Fred's current MTTCG WIP branch I ran into a problem
> where:
>
> - async_safe_work_pending() was true
> - this triggered setting cpu->exit_request
> - however we never left tcg_exec_all()
> - because the global exit_request wasn't set
> - hence qemu_tcg_wait_io_event() never drained the async work queue
exit_request should disappear with MTTCG. It should only have
cpu->tcg_exit_req and cpu->exit_request.
> While trying to understand why we have both a cpu and a global
> exit_request I then discovered there is also cpu->tcg_exit_req which is
> the actual variable the TCG examines. This leads to sequences like:
> This seems to me to be slightly insane as we now have 3 variables that
> struggle to be kept in sync. Could all this not be rationalised into a
> single variable or am I missing a subtly in their different semantics?
They do.
cpu->tcg_exit_req is the one that is set from generated code. It is set
if you do not have to exit cpu_exec.
cpu->exit_request and exit_request are both necessary, in order to
synchronize exits with the setting of tcg_current_cpu. Again, this is
only needed in single-threaded TCG, because MTTCG gets rid of
tcg_current_cpu. It's documented here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/357210.
> I don't know if there is clean-up that can happen in master or if this
> all needs to be done in the mttcg work but would it make sense just to
> keep cpu->exit_request,
Yes, and it's actually necessary. :)
> I did have a brief look at the KVM side of the code and it only seems to
> reference cpu->exit_request so I think the rest of this is a TCG
> problem.
Yes. With MTTCG you still need cpu->tcg_exit_req because you still have
something like KVM's kernel- and userspace-vmexits. In TCG the
lightweight exits are those that do not leave cpu_exec. Those only set
cpu->tcg_exit_req.
Paolo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-16 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-16 17:14 [Qemu-devel] Rationalising exit_request, cpu->exit_request and tcg_exit_req? Alex Bennée
2015-12-16 17:21 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
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=56719DAC.2030000@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=crosthwaitepeter@gmail.com \
--cc=fred.konrad@greensocs.com \
--cc=mark.burton@greensocs.com \
--cc=mttcg@greensocs.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).