| Message ID | 1454059965-23402-11-git-send-email-a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes: > As for the RAM case, also the MMIO exclusive ranges have to be protected > by other CPU's accesses. In order to do that, we flag the accessed > MemoryRegion to mark that an exclusive access has been performed and is > not concluded yet. > > This flag will force the other CPUs to invalidate the exclusive range in > case of collision. > > Suggested-by: Jani Kokkonen <jani.kokkonen@huawei.com> > Suggested-by: Claudio Fontana <claudio.fontana@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> > --- > cputlb.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- > include/exec/memory.h | 1 + > softmmu_llsc_template.h | 11 +++++++---- > softmmu_template.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/cputlb.c b/cputlb.c > index 87d09c8..06ce2da 100644 > --- a/cputlb.c > +++ b/cputlb.c > @@ -496,19 +496,25 @@ tb_page_addr_t get_page_addr_code(CPUArchState *env1, target_ulong addr) > /* For every vCPU compare the exclusive address and reset it in case of a > * match. Since only one vCPU is running at once, no lock has to be held to > * guard this operation. */ > -static inline void lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) > +static inline bool lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) > { > CPUState *cpu; > + bool ret = false; > > CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { > - if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && > - ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, > - cpu->excl_protected_range.end - > - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, > - addr, size)) { > - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; > + if (current_cpu != cpu) { I'm confused by this change. I don't see anywhere in the MMIO handling why we would want to change skipping the CPU. Perhaps this belongs in the previous patch? Maybe the function should really be lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr? > + if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && > + ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, > + cpu->excl_protected_range.end - > + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, > + addr, size)) { > + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; > + ret = true; > + } > } > } > + > + return ret; > } > > #define MMUSUFFIX _mmu > diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h > index 71e0480..bacb3ad 100644 > --- a/include/exec/memory.h > +++ b/include/exec/memory.h > @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct MemoryRegion { > bool rom_device; > bool flush_coalesced_mmio; > bool global_locking; > + bool pending_excl_access; /* A vCPU issued an exclusive access */ > uint8_t dirty_log_mask; > ram_addr_t ram_addr; > Object *owner; > diff --git a/softmmu_llsc_template.h b/softmmu_llsc_template.h > index 101f5e8..b4712ba 100644 > --- a/softmmu_llsc_template.h > +++ b/softmmu_llsc_template.h > @@ -81,15 +81,18 @@ WORD_TYPE helper_ldlink_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, > } > } > } > + /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ > + env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; > } else { > - hw_error("EXCL accesses to MMIO regions not supported yet."); > + /* Set a pending exclusive access in the MemoryRegion */ > + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(this, > + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr, > + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].attrs); > + mr->pending_excl_access = true; > } > > cc->cpu_set_excl_protected_range(this, hw_addr, DATA_SIZE); > > - /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ > - env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; > - > /* From now on we are in LL/SC context */ > this->ll_sc_context = true; > > diff --git a/softmmu_template.h b/softmmu_template.h > index c54bdc9..71c5152 100644 > --- a/softmmu_template.h > +++ b/softmmu_template.h > @@ -360,6 +360,14 @@ static inline void glue(io_write, SUFFIX)(CPUArchState *env, > MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, physaddr, iotlbentry->attrs); > > physaddr = (physaddr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + addr; > + > + /* Invalidate the exclusive range that overlaps this access */ > + if (mr->pending_excl_access) { > + if (lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(physaddr, 1 << SHIFT)) { > + mr->pending_excl_access = false; > + } > + } > + > if (mr != &io_mem_rom && mr != &io_mem_notdirty && !cpu->can_do_io) { > cpu_io_recompile(cpu, retaddr); > } > @@ -504,6 +512,13 @@ void helper_le_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, > glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, > mmu_idx, index, > retaddr); > + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access > + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ > + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { > + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, > + iotlbentry->attrs); > + mr->pending_excl_access = false; > + } > } else { > glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, > mmu_idx, index, > @@ -655,6 +670,13 @@ void helper_be_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, > glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, > mmu_idx, index, > retaddr); > + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access > + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ > + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { > + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, > + iotlbentry->attrs); > + mr->pending_excl_access = false; > + } My comments about duplication on previous patches still stand. > } else { > glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, > mmu_idx, index, -- Alex Bennée
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote: > > Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes: > >> As for the RAM case, also the MMIO exclusive ranges have to be protected >> by other CPU's accesses. In order to do that, we flag the accessed >> MemoryRegion to mark that an exclusive access has been performed and is >> not concluded yet. >> >> This flag will force the other CPUs to invalidate the exclusive range in >> case of collision. >> >> Suggested-by: Jani Kokkonen <jani.kokkonen@huawei.com> >> Suggested-by: Claudio Fontana <claudio.fontana@huawei.com> >> Signed-off-by: Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> >> --- >> cputlb.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- >> include/exec/memory.h | 1 + >> softmmu_llsc_template.h | 11 +++++++---- >> softmmu_template.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/cputlb.c b/cputlb.c >> index 87d09c8..06ce2da 100644 >> --- a/cputlb.c >> +++ b/cputlb.c >> @@ -496,19 +496,25 @@ tb_page_addr_t get_page_addr_code(CPUArchState *env1, target_ulong addr) >> /* For every vCPU compare the exclusive address and reset it in case of a >> * match. Since only one vCPU is running at once, no lock has to be held to >> * guard this operation. */ >> -static inline void lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) >> +static inline bool lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) >> { >> CPUState *cpu; >> + bool ret = false; >> >> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { >> - if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && >> - ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >> - cpu->excl_protected_range.end - >> - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >> - addr, size)) { >> - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; >> + if (current_cpu != cpu) { > > I'm confused by this change. I don't see anywhere in the MMIO handling > why we would want to change skipping the CPU. Perhaps this belongs in > the previous patch? Maybe the function should really be > lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr? This is actually used later on in this patch. > >> + if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && >> + ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >> + cpu->excl_protected_range.end - >> + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >> + addr, size)) { >> + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; >> + ret = true; >> + } >> } >> } >> + >> + return ret; >> } >> >> #define MMUSUFFIX _mmu >> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h >> index 71e0480..bacb3ad 100644 >> --- a/include/exec/memory.h >> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h >> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct MemoryRegion { >> bool rom_device; >> bool flush_coalesced_mmio; >> bool global_locking; >> + bool pending_excl_access; /* A vCPU issued an exclusive access */ >> uint8_t dirty_log_mask; >> ram_addr_t ram_addr; >> Object *owner; >> diff --git a/softmmu_llsc_template.h b/softmmu_llsc_template.h >> index 101f5e8..b4712ba 100644 >> --- a/softmmu_llsc_template.h >> +++ b/softmmu_llsc_template.h >> @@ -81,15 +81,18 @@ WORD_TYPE helper_ldlink_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, >> } >> } >> } >> + /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ >> + env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; >> } else { >> - hw_error("EXCL accesses to MMIO regions not supported yet."); >> + /* Set a pending exclusive access in the MemoryRegion */ >> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(this, >> + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr, >> + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].attrs); >> + mr->pending_excl_access = true; >> } >> >> cc->cpu_set_excl_protected_range(this, hw_addr, DATA_SIZE); >> >> - /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ >> - env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; >> - >> /* From now on we are in LL/SC context */ >> this->ll_sc_context = true; >> >> diff --git a/softmmu_template.h b/softmmu_template.h >> index c54bdc9..71c5152 100644 >> --- a/softmmu_template.h >> +++ b/softmmu_template.h >> @@ -360,6 +360,14 @@ static inline void glue(io_write, SUFFIX)(CPUArchState *env, >> MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, physaddr, iotlbentry->attrs); >> >> physaddr = (physaddr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + addr; >> + >> + /* Invalidate the exclusive range that overlaps this access */ >> + if (mr->pending_excl_access) { >> + if (lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(physaddr, 1 << SHIFT)) { Here precisely. As you wrote, we can rename it to lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr even if this name does not convince me. What about other_cpus_reset_colliding_ll_addr? Thank you, alvise >> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >> + } >> + } >> + >> if (mr != &io_mem_rom && mr != &io_mem_notdirty && !cpu->can_do_io) { >> cpu_io_recompile(cpu, retaddr); >> } >> @@ -504,6 +512,13 @@ void helper_le_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, >> glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >> mmu_idx, index, >> retaddr); >> + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access >> + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ >> + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { >> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, >> + iotlbentry->attrs); >> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >> + } >> } else { >> glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >> mmu_idx, index, >> @@ -655,6 +670,13 @@ void helper_be_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, >> glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >> mmu_idx, index, >> retaddr); >> + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access >> + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ >> + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { >> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, >> + iotlbentry->attrs); >> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >> + } > > My comments about duplication on previous patches still stand. Indeed. Thank you, alvise > >> } else { >> glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >> mmu_idx, index, > > > -- > Alex Bennée
alvise rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes: >> >>> As for the RAM case, also the MMIO exclusive ranges have to be protected >>> by other CPU's accesses. In order to do that, we flag the accessed >>> MemoryRegion to mark that an exclusive access has been performed and is >>> not concluded yet. >>> >>> This flag will force the other CPUs to invalidate the exclusive range in >>> case of collision. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Jani Kokkonen <jani.kokkonen@huawei.com> >>> Suggested-by: Claudio Fontana <claudio.fontana@huawei.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> >>> --- >>> cputlb.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- >>> include/exec/memory.h | 1 + >>> softmmu_llsc_template.h | 11 +++++++---- >>> softmmu_template.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/cputlb.c b/cputlb.c >>> index 87d09c8..06ce2da 100644 >>> --- a/cputlb.c >>> +++ b/cputlb.c >>> @@ -496,19 +496,25 @@ tb_page_addr_t get_page_addr_code(CPUArchState *env1, target_ulong addr) >>> /* For every vCPU compare the exclusive address and reset it in case of a >>> * match. Since only one vCPU is running at once, no lock has to be held to >>> * guard this operation. */ >>> -static inline void lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) >>> +static inline bool lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) >>> { >>> CPUState *cpu; >>> + bool ret = false; >>> >>> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { >>> - if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && >>> - ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>> - cpu->excl_protected_range.end - >>> - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>> - addr, size)) { >>> - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; >>> + if (current_cpu != cpu) { >> >> I'm confused by this change. I don't see anywhere in the MMIO handling >> why we would want to change skipping the CPU. Perhaps this belongs in >> the previous patch? Maybe the function should really be >> lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr? > > This is actually used later on in this patch. But aren't there other users before the functional change was made to skip the current_cpu? Where their expectations wrong or should we have always skipped the current CPU? The additional of the bool return I agree only needs to be brought in now when there are functions that care. > >> >>> + if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && >>> + ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>> + cpu->excl_protected_range.end - >>> + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>> + addr, size)) { >>> + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; >>> + ret = true; >>> + } >>> } >>> } >>> + >>> + return ret; >>> } >>> >>> #define MMUSUFFIX _mmu >>> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h >>> index 71e0480..bacb3ad 100644 >>> --- a/include/exec/memory.h >>> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h >>> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct MemoryRegion { >>> bool rom_device; >>> bool flush_coalesced_mmio; >>> bool global_locking; >>> + bool pending_excl_access; /* A vCPU issued an exclusive access */ >>> uint8_t dirty_log_mask; >>> ram_addr_t ram_addr; >>> Object *owner; >>> diff --git a/softmmu_llsc_template.h b/softmmu_llsc_template.h >>> index 101f5e8..b4712ba 100644 >>> --- a/softmmu_llsc_template.h >>> +++ b/softmmu_llsc_template.h >>> @@ -81,15 +81,18 @@ WORD_TYPE helper_ldlink_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, >>> } >>> } >>> } >>> + /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ >>> + env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; >>> } else { >>> - hw_error("EXCL accesses to MMIO regions not supported yet."); >>> + /* Set a pending exclusive access in the MemoryRegion */ >>> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(this, >>> + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr, >>> + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].attrs); >>> + mr->pending_excl_access = true; >>> } >>> >>> cc->cpu_set_excl_protected_range(this, hw_addr, DATA_SIZE); >>> >>> - /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ >>> - env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; >>> - >>> /* From now on we are in LL/SC context */ >>> this->ll_sc_context = true; >>> >>> diff --git a/softmmu_template.h b/softmmu_template.h >>> index c54bdc9..71c5152 100644 >>> --- a/softmmu_template.h >>> +++ b/softmmu_template.h >>> @@ -360,6 +360,14 @@ static inline void glue(io_write, SUFFIX)(CPUArchState *env, >>> MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, physaddr, iotlbentry->attrs); >>> >>> physaddr = (physaddr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + addr; >>> + >>> + /* Invalidate the exclusive range that overlaps this access */ >>> + if (mr->pending_excl_access) { >>> + if (lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(physaddr, 1 << SHIFT)) { > > Here precisely. As you wrote, we can rename it to > lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr even if this name does not > convince me. What about other_cpus_reset_colliding_ll_addr? We want as short and semantically informative as possible. Naming things is hard ;-) - reset_other_cpus_colliding_ll_addr - reset_other_cpus_overlapping_ll_addr Any other options? > > Thank you, > alvise > >>> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >>> + } >>> + } >>> + >>> if (mr != &io_mem_rom && mr != &io_mem_notdirty && !cpu->can_do_io) { >>> cpu_io_recompile(cpu, retaddr); >>> } >>> @@ -504,6 +512,13 @@ void helper_le_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, >>> glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>> mmu_idx, index, >>> retaddr); >>> + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access >>> + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ >>> + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { >>> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, >>> + iotlbentry->attrs); >>> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >>> + } >>> } else { >>> glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>> mmu_idx, index, >>> @@ -655,6 +670,13 @@ void helper_be_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, >>> glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>> mmu_idx, index, >>> retaddr); >>> + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access >>> + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ >>> + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { >>> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, >>> + iotlbentry->attrs); >>> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >>> + } >> >> My comments about duplication on previous patches still stand. > > Indeed. > > Thank you, > alvise > >> >>> } else { >>> glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>> mmu_idx, index, >> >> >> -- >> Alex Bennée -- Alex Bennée
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote: > > alvise rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> writes: >>> >>>> As for the RAM case, also the MMIO exclusive ranges have to be protected >>>> by other CPU's accesses. In order to do that, we flag the accessed >>>> MemoryRegion to mark that an exclusive access has been performed and is >>>> not concluded yet. >>>> >>>> This flag will force the other CPUs to invalidate the exclusive range in >>>> case of collision. >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Jani Kokkonen <jani.kokkonen@huawei.com> >>>> Suggested-by: Claudio Fontana <claudio.fontana@huawei.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> >>>> --- >>>> cputlb.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- >>>> include/exec/memory.h | 1 + >>>> softmmu_llsc_template.h | 11 +++++++---- >>>> softmmu_template.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/cputlb.c b/cputlb.c >>>> index 87d09c8..06ce2da 100644 >>>> --- a/cputlb.c >>>> +++ b/cputlb.c >>>> @@ -496,19 +496,25 @@ tb_page_addr_t get_page_addr_code(CPUArchState *env1, target_ulong addr) >>>> /* For every vCPU compare the exclusive address and reset it in case of a >>>> * match. Since only one vCPU is running at once, no lock has to be held to >>>> * guard this operation. */ >>>> -static inline void lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) >>>> +static inline bool lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) >>>> { >>>> CPUState *cpu; >>>> + bool ret = false; >>>> >>>> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { >>>> - if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && >>>> - ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>>> - cpu->excl_protected_range.end - >>>> - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>>> - addr, size)) { >>>> - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; >>>> + if (current_cpu != cpu) { >>> >>> I'm confused by this change. I don't see anywhere in the MMIO handling >>> why we would want to change skipping the CPU. Perhaps this belongs in >>> the previous patch? Maybe the function should really be >>> lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr? >> >> This is actually used later on in this patch. > > But aren't there other users before the functional change was made to > skip the current_cpu? Where their expectations wrong or should we have > always skipped the current CPU? I see your point now. When current_cpu was skipped, there was no need of the line cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; in helper_stcond_name() when we return back from softmmu_template.h. The error is that that line should have been added in this patch, not in PATCH 07/16. Fixing it for the next version. > > The additional of the bool return I agree only needs to be brought in > now when there are functions that care. > >> >>> >>>> + if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && >>>> + ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>>> + cpu->excl_protected_range.end - >>>> + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, >>>> + addr, size)) { >>>> + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; >>>> + ret = true; >>>> + } >>>> } >>>> } >>>> + >>>> + return ret; >>>> } >>>> >>>> #define MMUSUFFIX _mmu >>>> diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h >>>> index 71e0480..bacb3ad 100644 >>>> --- a/include/exec/memory.h >>>> +++ b/include/exec/memory.h >>>> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct MemoryRegion { >>>> bool rom_device; >>>> bool flush_coalesced_mmio; >>>> bool global_locking; >>>> + bool pending_excl_access; /* A vCPU issued an exclusive access */ >>>> uint8_t dirty_log_mask; >>>> ram_addr_t ram_addr; >>>> Object *owner; >>>> diff --git a/softmmu_llsc_template.h b/softmmu_llsc_template.h >>>> index 101f5e8..b4712ba 100644 >>>> --- a/softmmu_llsc_template.h >>>> +++ b/softmmu_llsc_template.h >>>> @@ -81,15 +81,18 @@ WORD_TYPE helper_ldlink_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, >>>> } >>>> } >>>> } >>>> + /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ >>>> + env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; >>>> } else { >>>> - hw_error("EXCL accesses to MMIO regions not supported yet."); >>>> + /* Set a pending exclusive access in the MemoryRegion */ >>>> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(this, >>>> + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr, >>>> + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].attrs); >>>> + mr->pending_excl_access = true; >>>> } >>>> >>>> cc->cpu_set_excl_protected_range(this, hw_addr, DATA_SIZE); >>>> >>>> - /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ >>>> - env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; >>>> - >>>> /* From now on we are in LL/SC context */ >>>> this->ll_sc_context = true; >>>> >>>> diff --git a/softmmu_template.h b/softmmu_template.h >>>> index c54bdc9..71c5152 100644 >>>> --- a/softmmu_template.h >>>> +++ b/softmmu_template.h >>>> @@ -360,6 +360,14 @@ static inline void glue(io_write, SUFFIX)(CPUArchState *env, >>>> MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, physaddr, iotlbentry->attrs); >>>> >>>> physaddr = (physaddr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + addr; >>>> + >>>> + /* Invalidate the exclusive range that overlaps this access */ >>>> + if (mr->pending_excl_access) { >>>> + if (lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(physaddr, 1 << SHIFT)) { >> >> Here precisely. As you wrote, we can rename it to >> lookup_and_maybe_reset_other_cpu_ll_addr even if this name does not >> convince me. What about other_cpus_reset_colliding_ll_addr? > > We want as short and semantically informative as possible. Naming things is hard ;-) > > - reset_other_cpus_colliding_ll_addr > - reset_other_cpus_overlapping_ll_addr > > Any other options? Umm, these sound fine to me. Probably the first one since shorter. Thank you, alvise > >> >> Thank you, >> alvise >> >>>> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >>>> + } >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> if (mr != &io_mem_rom && mr != &io_mem_notdirty && !cpu->can_do_io) { >>>> cpu_io_recompile(cpu, retaddr); >>>> } >>>> @@ -504,6 +512,13 @@ void helper_le_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, >>>> glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>>> mmu_idx, index, >>>> retaddr); >>>> + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access >>>> + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ >>>> + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { >>>> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, >>>> + iotlbentry->attrs); >>>> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >>>> + } >>>> } else { >>>> glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>>> mmu_idx, index, >>>> @@ -655,6 +670,13 @@ void helper_be_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, >>>> glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>>> mmu_idx, index, >>>> retaddr); >>>> + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access >>>> + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ >>>> + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { >>>> + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, >>>> + iotlbentry->attrs); >>>> + mr->pending_excl_access = false; >>>> + } >>> >>> My comments about duplication on previous patches still stand. >> >> Indeed. >> >> Thank you, >> alvise >> >>> >>>> } else { >>>> glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, >>>> mmu_idx, index, >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alex Bennée > > > -- > Alex Bennée
diff --git a/cputlb.c b/cputlb.c index 87d09c8..06ce2da 100644 --- a/cputlb.c +++ b/cputlb.c @@ -496,19 +496,25 @@ tb_page_addr_t get_page_addr_code(CPUArchState *env1, target_ulong addr) /* For every vCPU compare the exclusive address and reset it in case of a * match. Since only one vCPU is running at once, no lock has to be held to * guard this operation. */ -static inline void lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) +static inline bool lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(hwaddr addr, hwaddr size) { CPUState *cpu; + bool ret = false; CPU_FOREACH(cpu) { - if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && - ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, - cpu->excl_protected_range.end - - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, - addr, size)) { - cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; + if (current_cpu != cpu) { + if (cpu->excl_protected_range.begin != EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR && + ranges_overlap(cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, + cpu->excl_protected_range.end - + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin, + addr, size)) { + cpu->excl_protected_range.begin = EXCLUSIVE_RESET_ADDR; + ret = true; + } } } + + return ret; } #define MMUSUFFIX _mmu diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h index 71e0480..bacb3ad 100644 --- a/include/exec/memory.h +++ b/include/exec/memory.h @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct MemoryRegion { bool rom_device; bool flush_coalesced_mmio; bool global_locking; + bool pending_excl_access; /* A vCPU issued an exclusive access */ uint8_t dirty_log_mask; ram_addr_t ram_addr; Object *owner; diff --git a/softmmu_llsc_template.h b/softmmu_llsc_template.h index 101f5e8..b4712ba 100644 --- a/softmmu_llsc_template.h +++ b/softmmu_llsc_template.h @@ -81,15 +81,18 @@ WORD_TYPE helper_ldlink_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, } } } + /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ + env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; } else { - hw_error("EXCL accesses to MMIO regions not supported yet."); + /* Set a pending exclusive access in the MemoryRegion */ + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(this, + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr, + env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].attrs); + mr->pending_excl_access = true; } cc->cpu_set_excl_protected_range(this, hw_addr, DATA_SIZE); - /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to flush. */ - env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL; - /* From now on we are in LL/SC context */ this->ll_sc_context = true; diff --git a/softmmu_template.h b/softmmu_template.h index c54bdc9..71c5152 100644 --- a/softmmu_template.h +++ b/softmmu_template.h @@ -360,6 +360,14 @@ static inline void glue(io_write, SUFFIX)(CPUArchState *env, MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, physaddr, iotlbentry->attrs); physaddr = (physaddr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + addr; + + /* Invalidate the exclusive range that overlaps this access */ + if (mr->pending_excl_access) { + if (lookup_and_reset_cpus_ll_addr(physaddr, 1 << SHIFT)) { + mr->pending_excl_access = false; + } + } + if (mr != &io_mem_rom && mr != &io_mem_notdirty && !cpu->can_do_io) { cpu_io_recompile(cpu, retaddr); } @@ -504,6 +512,13 @@ void helper_le_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, mmu_idx, index, retaddr); + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, + iotlbentry->attrs); + mr->pending_excl_access = false; + } } else { glue(helper_le_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, mmu_idx, index, @@ -655,6 +670,13 @@ void helper_be_st_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr, DATA_TYPE val, glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_mmio_access)(env, val, addr, oi, mmu_idx, index, retaddr); + /* N.B.: Here excl_succeeded == true means that this access + * comes from an exclusive instruction. */ + if (cpu->excl_succeeded) { + MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(cpu, iotlbentry->addr, + iotlbentry->attrs); + mr->pending_excl_access = false; + } } else { glue(helper_be_st_name, _do_ram_access)(env, val, addr, oi, mmu_idx, index,
As for the RAM case, also the MMIO exclusive ranges have to be protected by other CPU's accesses. In order to do that, we flag the accessed MemoryRegion to mark that an exclusive access has been performed and is not concluded yet. This flag will force the other CPUs to invalidate the exclusive range in case of collision. Suggested-by: Jani Kokkonen <jani.kokkonen@huawei.com> Suggested-by: Claudio Fontana <claudio.fontana@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Alvise Rigo <a.rigo@virtualopensystems.com> --- cputlb.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- include/exec/memory.h | 1 + softmmu_llsc_template.h | 11 +++++++---- softmmu_template.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)