qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Reverse execution and deterministic replay


From: Frederic Konrad
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Reverse execution and deterministic replay
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:43:42 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0


We also started with a separate counter, but using icount, which is intended to
provide just this functionality, is much more logical.

On 27/06/2014 13:17, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote:
On 27 June 2014 11:35, Pavel Dovgaluk <address@hidden> wrote:
The major disadvantage of icount is that it's updated only on TB boundaries.
When one instruction in the middle of the block uses virtual clock, it could
have different values for different divisions of the code to TB.
This is only true if the instruction is incorrectly not
marked as being "I/O". The idea behind icount is that in
general we update it on TB boundaries (it's much faster
than doing it once per insn) but for those places which
do turn out to need an exact icount we then retranslate
the block to get the instruction-to-icount-adjustment
mapping.
I see. But if we want virtual clock in "real" mode then we still
should create new timer (based on icount code).

That's exactly what QEMU_ICOUNT_CLOCK does in our series:
It depends only on the instruction counter and we use it to exit at the right moment (by computing icount extra from this new clock as well). We don't have
this with QEMU_VIRTUAL_CLOCK as some host time is added to it.

"Real" mode support is somewhat a strange notion when we talk about reversing,
we believe that insisting on using icount for reverse execution is perfectly
acceptable, as introducing any sort of non-determinism based on the host clock
will not be helpful.

It wouldn't surprise me if this turned out to have some
bugs in corner cases, but fixing these issues seems to
me like a much better design than ignoring icount completely
and reimplementing a second instruction counter.
When we started an implementation, we didn't have enough resources
to fix all such bugs. That is why we selected such conservative
approach. But I believe that in future we will adopt the icount
for replay purposes.

Pavel Dovgaluk

As you say, there are some little bugs with icount which must be fixed anyway.

I'm sure you did other advances that we have not managed, and as I say, I would be happy to review your patches as I am sure they will imporve reverse execution
support.

Fred



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]