On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 7:03 PM, 陳韋任 <che...@iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:
>> if (!tb->jmp_next[n]) { <--- what if n is 2?
>>
>> This is my question, if n is two, it would actually be checking the
>> jmp_first field immediatedly following the jmp_next array in the tb
>> structure. This function only updates the jmp_first field and doesn't
>> touch jmp_next when n is 2. Does anybody know why this is? It seems
>> like you would like to leave the tb chaining as it was, because you
>> are going to execute the same translation block again, it just jumped
>> out to replenish the icount_decr counter. -Jim
>
> I set a conditional breakpoint at tb_add_jump to watch what happened when
> n is 2. Look at tb_link_page (exec.c) first, which initializes some fields of
> a TranslatioBlock.
>
> void tb_link_page(TranslationBlock *tb, ...)
> {
> tb->jmp_first = (TranslationBlock *)((long)tb | 2);
> tb->jmp_next[0] = NULL;
> tb->jmp_next[1] = NULL;
> }
>
> And look at struct TranslationBlock (exec-all.h),
>
> struct TranslationBlock {
> /* list of TBs jumping to this one. This is a circular list using
> the two least significant bits of the pointers to tell what is
> the next pointer: 0 = jmp_next[0], 1 = jmp_next[1], 2 =
> jmp_first */
> struct TranslationBlock *jmp_next[2];
> struct TranslationBlock *jmp_first;
> }
>
> I think those numbers (0, 1, and 2) means tb_add_jump 2nd parameter here, so
> it's intentionally to check jmp_first when n is 2. Since tb->jmp_first is
> never
> to be zero, then condition is always false (do nothing) when n is 2. You said
>
> "This function only updates the jmp_first field and doesn't touch jmp_next
> when n is 2"
>
> Do you mean in some case (tb->jmp_first == 0) it might execute the following
> code when n is 2? Because I don't see tb_add_jump updates jmp_first and leave
> jmp_next alone when n is 2, it just do nothing.
>
> tb_set_jmp_target(tb, n, (unsigned long)tb_next->tc_ptr);
> tb->jmp_next[n] = tb_next->jmp_first;
> tb_next->jmp_first = (TranslationBlock *)((long)(tb) | (n));
>
> Your guess makes sense to me,
>
> "It seems like you would like to leave the tb chaining as it was, because you
> are going to execute the same translation block again, it just jumped out to
> replenish the icount_decr counter"
>
> And talk about the meaning of last significant bits of TranslationBlock*.
> AFAIK,
> if last significant bits of TranslationBlock* are set to 2, then it means the
> circular list of block chaining is stopped at this TranslationBlock. For
> example, if tb1 links to tb2 (tb1 -> tb2), then
>
> tb1->jmp_next = tb2 | 2
> tb2->jmp_first = tb1 | 1
>
> You can check the slide below if you want. It illustates how those fields
> (jmp_first and jmp_next) are used in block chaining.
>
> http://www.hellogcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/QEMU-block-chaining.ppt
>
> Regards,
> chenwj
>
> --
> Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)
> Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science,
> Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
> Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667
> Homepage: http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj
Chenwj, you are correct, the check bypasses the whole function, I was
not paying enough attention to that check, it should never be null, in
which case the code doesn't get executed and the chaining remains
unchanged. Thanks. -Jim
