From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51734) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c5sZN-00021N-FC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 06:03:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c5sZK-0002BU-CI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 06:03:29 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]:36300) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c5sZK-0002BL-5O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 06:03:26 -0500 Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id g23so51840022wme.1 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 03:03:25 -0800 (PST) Sender: Richard Henderson References: <54f6f6ed-9d1e-1bce-d665-a282863c2028@twiddle.net> <878tsnafcn.fsf@linaro.org> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:03:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <878tsnafcn.fsf@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] target-alpha mttcg success List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?Q?Alex_Benn=c3=a9e?= Cc: qemu-devel , Pranith Kumar On 11/13/2016 10:39 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> There does appear to be a problem with delivery of ISA interrupts for smp, >> regardless whether mttcg is enabled or not, though PCI interrupts are working >> fine. This appears in that both serial console and ps2 keyboard are >> non-responsive, but one can ssh into the guest. Which doesn't make a whole lot >> of sense. More debugging required, I suppose. > > Hmm weird. I was helping Pranith with debugging one of his aarch64 guest > setups under TCG and it seemed to be loosing IRQs, I could see level=1 > breakpoints being hit in qemu_set_irq but no delivery of the IRQ to the > CPU. Unfortunately I had to head home before we got to the bottom of it > but I wonder if it is related. Interesting. Please keep me in the loop on that one. > As far as the core code is concerned IRQ updates should be protected by > the BQL. Good, that confirms what I remembered on the subject. r~