Hi Alex,
January 9, 2025 at 6:06 PM, "Alex Bennée" wrote:
> While it would be technically correct to allow an IRQ to happen (as
> the offending instruction never really completed) it messes up
> instrumentation. We already take care to only use memory
> instrumentation on the block, we should also suppress IRQs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Julian Ganz <neither@nut.email>
> ---
> accel/tcg/translate-all.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/accel/tcg/translate-all.c b/accel/tcg/translate-all.c
> index 453eb20ec9..d56ca13cdd 100644
> --- a/accel/tcg/translate-all.c
> +++ b/accel/tcg/translate-all.c
> @@ -633,9 +633,10 @@ void cpu_io_recompile(CPUState *cpu, uintptr_t retaddr)
> * Exit the loop and potentially generate a new TB executing the
> * just the I/O insns. We also limit instrumentation to memory
> * operations only (which execute after completion) so we don't
> - * double instrument the instruction.
> + * double instrument the instruction. Also don't let an IRQ sneak
> + * in before we execute it.
> */
> - cpu->cflags_next_tb = curr_cflags(cpu) | CF_MEMI_ONLY | n;
> + cpu->cflags_next_tb = curr_cflags(cpu) | CF_MEMI_ONLY | CF_NOIRQ | n;
>
> if (qemu_loglevel_mask(CPU_LOG_EXEC)) {
> vaddr pc = cpu->cc->get_pc(cpu);
> --
> 2.39.5
Reviewed-by: Julian Ganz <neither@nut.email>
