On 29/01/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 16 January 2015 at 17:19, <fred.kon...@greensocs.com> wrote:
From: KONRAD Frederic <fred.kon...@greensocs.com>
We need a different TranslationBlock list for each core in case of multithread
TCG.
Signed-off-by: KONRAD Frederic <fred.kon...@greensocs.com>
---
translate-all.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/translate-all.c b/translate-all.c
index 8fa4378..0e11c70 100644
--- a/translate-all.c
+++ b/translate-all.c
@@ -72,10 +72,11 @@
#endif
#define SMC_BITMAP_USE_THRESHOLD 10
+#define MAX_CPUS 256
typedef struct PageDesc {
/* list of TBs intersecting this ram page */
- TranslationBlock *first_tb;
+ TranslationBlock *first_tb[MAX_CPUS];
Do we really need to know this for every CPU, or just for
the one that's using this PageDesc? I am assuming we're going to make
the l1_map be per-CPU.
Do we have any clue of which cpu is using this PageDesc?
We did this like that because it is quite simple.
/* in order to optimize self modifying code, we count the number
of lookups we do to a given page to use a bitmap */
unsigned int code_write_count;
@@ -750,7 +751,7 @@ static inline void invalidate_page_bitmap(PageDesc *p)
/* Set to NULL all the 'first_tb' fields in all PageDescs. */
static void page_flush_tb_1(int level, void **lp)
{
- int i;
+ int i, j;
if (*lp == NULL) {
return;
@@ -759,7 +760,9 @@ static void page_flush_tb_1(int level, void **lp)
PageDesc *pd = *lp;
for (i = 0; i < V_L2_SIZE; ++i) {
- pd[i].first_tb = NULL;
+ for (j = 0; j < MAX_CPUS; j++) {
+ pd[i].first_tb[j] = NULL;
+ }
invalidate_page_bitmap(pd + i);
}
} else {
@@ -937,12 +940,12 @@ void tb_phys_invalidate(TranslationBlock *tb,
tb_page_addr_t page_addr)
/* remove the TB from the page list */
if (tb->page_addr[0] != page_addr) {
p = page_find(tb->page_addr[0] >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS);
- tb_page_remove(&p->first_tb, tb);
+ tb_page_remove(&p->first_tb[current_cpu->cpu_index], tb);
Anything using current_cpu in this code is hugely suspect.
For instance cpu_restore_state() takes a CPUState pointer and
calls this function -- either it should be acting on just that
CPU (which might not be the current one) or on all CPUs. In
any case implicitly working on current_cpu here is wrong.
Probably we need to look at the public-facing functions here
and decide which should have "operate on all CPUs" semantics
and which should have "operate on the CPU passed as a parameter"
and which "operate on the implicit current CPU".
Ok so the idea would be to have eg a cpu mask parameter to know which cpu to
invalidate/restore etc etc?
Or just pointer and invalidate all if NULL?
Thanks,
Fred
-- PMM
