From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39523) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGntD-000249-1n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 08:12:36 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aGntB-0008OG-RN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 08:12:34 -0500 References: <004073b3af0a56899f9a07e3f6b00167359322e6.1451960508.git.digetx@gmail.com> <20160106121711.GC4227@pcrost-box> From: Dmitry Osipenko Message-ID: <568D12A7.3010304@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 16:12:07 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160106121711.GC4227@pcrost-box> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v8 2/4] hw/ptimer: Perform tick and counter wrap around if timer already expired List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, QEMU Developers 06.01.2016 15:17, Peter Crosthwaite пишет: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:33:27AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> ptimer_get_count() might be called while QEMU timer already been expired. >> In that case ptimer would return counter = 0, which might be undesirable >> in case of polled timer. Do counter wrap around for periodic timer to keep >> it distributed. >> >> In addition, there is no reason to keep expired timer tick deferred, so >> just perform the tick from ptimer_get_count(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko >> --- >> hw/core/ptimer.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/core/ptimer.c b/hw/core/ptimer.c >> index 035af97..96a6c7a 100644 >> --- a/hw/core/ptimer.c >> +++ b/hw/core/ptimer.c >> @@ -85,15 +85,21 @@ static void ptimer_tick(void *opaque) >> >> uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) >> { >> + int enabled = s->enabled; > > Variable localisation not needed. > >> int64_t now; >> + int64_t next; >> uint64_t counter; >> + int expired; >> + int oneshot; > > Variable defs can be localised to the if (enabled) (even though now > in original code doesn't do that). > Yeah, I just tried to keep original style here. >> >> - if (s->enabled) { >> + if (enabled) { >> now = qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL); >> + next = s->next_event; >> + expired = (now - next >= 0); >> + oneshot = (enabled == 2); >> /* Figure out the current counter value. */ > > This comment is now out of place. > Okay, will fix it. >> - if (now - s->next_event > 0 >> - || s->period == 0) { >> - /* Prevent timer underflowing if it should already have >> + if (s->period == 0 || (expired && oneshot)) { >> + /* Prevent one-shot timer underflowing if it should already have >> triggered. */ >> counter = 0; >> } else { >> @@ -114,12 +120,12 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) >> backwards. >> */ >> >> - if ((s->enabled == 1) && (s->limit * period < 10000)) { >> + if (!oneshot && (s->limit * period < 10000)) { >> period = 10000 / s->limit; >> period_frac = 0; >> } >> >> - rem = s->next_event - now; >> + rem = expired ? now - next : next - now; >> div = period; >> >> clz1 = clz64(rem); >> @@ -139,6 +145,23 @@ uint64_t ptimer_get_count(ptimer_state *s) >> div += 1; >> } >> counter = rem / div; >> + >> + if (expired) { >> + /* Wrap around periodic counter. */ >> + counter = s->delta = s->limit - counter % s->limit; > > Why do you update the delta here? > Because we would want to schedule next tick based on current wrapped around counter value and not some arbitrary delta. > Also can you just get ptimer_reload to do the modulo math for you? If the > timer is !oneshot and expired, then you call ptimer_reload anyway, > which will update next_event. When the expired test returns false > you can just reliably use the original logic involving now and next. > Yes, that's what I changed in V9. Have you received it? https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-01/msg00272.html >> + } >> + } >> + >> + if (expired) { >> + if (oneshot) { > > This if-else has a lot of common structure with the one above. I think > they could be merged. > That's a good suggestion, will do it in V10. Thanks. > Regards, > Peter > >> + ptimer_tick(s); >> + } else { >> + /* Don't use ptimer_tick() for the periodic timer since it >> + * would reset the delta value. >> + */ >> + ptimer_trigger(s); >> + ptimer_reload(s); >> + } >> } >> } else { >> counter = s->delta; >> -- >> 2.6.4 >> -- Dmitry