qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 02/10] softmmu_llsc_template.h: Move to multi-thre


From: Sergey Fedorov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 02/10] softmmu_llsc_template.h: Move to multi-threading
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:00:21 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0

On 10/06/16 18:53, alvise rigo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Sergey Fedorov <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 26/05/16 19:35, Alvise Rigo wrote:
>>> Using tcg_exclusive_{lock,unlock}(), make the emulation of
>>> LoadLink/StoreConditional thread safe.
>>>
>>> During an LL access, this lock protects the load access itself, the
>>> update of the exclusive history and the update of the VCPU's protected
>>> range.  In a SC access, the lock protects the store access itself, the
>>> possible reset of other VCPUs' protected range and the reset of the
>>> exclusive context of calling VCPU.
>>>
>>> The lock is also taken when a normal store happens to access an
>>> exclusive page to reset other VCPUs' protected range in case of
>>> collision.
>> I think the key problem here is that the load in LL helper can race with
>> a concurrent regular fast-path store. It's probably easier to annotate
>> the source here:
>>
>>      1  WORD_TYPE helper_ldlink_name(CPUArchState *env, target_ulong addr,
>>      2                                  TCGMemOpIdx oi, uintptr_t retaddr)
>>      3  {
>>      4      WORD_TYPE ret;
>>      5      int index;
>>      6      CPUState *this_cpu = ENV_GET_CPU(env);
>>      7      CPUClass *cc = CPU_GET_CLASS(this_cpu);
>>      8      hwaddr hw_addr;
>>      9      unsigned mmu_idx = get_mmuidx(oi);
>>
>>     10      index = (addr >> TARGET_PAGE_BITS) & (CPU_TLB_SIZE - 1);
>>
>>     11      tcg_exclusive_lock();
>>
>>     12      /* Use the proper load helper from cpu_ldst.h */
>>     13      ret = helper_ld(env, addr, oi, retaddr);
>>
>>     14      /* hw_addr = hwaddr of the page (i.e. section->mr->ram_addr
>> + xlat)
>>     15       * plus the offset (i.e. addr & ~TARGET_PAGE_MASK) */
>>     16      hw_addr = (env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr &
>> TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + addr;
>>     17      if (likely(!(env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_read &
>> TLB_MMIO))) {
>>     18          /* If all the vCPUs have the EXCL bit set for this page
>> there is no need
>>     19           * to request any flush. */
>>     20          if (cpu_physical_memory_set_excl(hw_addr)) {
>>     21              CPUState *cpu;
>>
>>     22              excl_history_put_addr(hw_addr);
>>     23              CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
>>     24                  if (this_cpu != cpu) {
>>     25                      tlb_flush_other(this_cpu, cpu, 1);
>>     26                  }
>>     27              }
>>     28          }
>>     29          /* For this vCPU, just update the TLB entry, no need to
>> flush. */
>>     30          env->tlb_table[mmu_idx][index].addr_write |= TLB_EXCL;
>>     31      } else {
>>     32          /* Set a pending exclusive access in the MemoryRegion */
>>     33          MemoryRegion *mr = iotlb_to_region(this_cpu,
>>     34
>> env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].addr,
>>     35
>> env->iotlb[mmu_idx][index].attrs);
>>     36          mr->pending_excl_access = true;
>>     37      }
>>
>>     38      cc->cpu_set_excl_protected_range(this_cpu, hw_addr, DATA_SIZE);
>>
>>     39      tcg_exclusive_unlock();
>>
>>     40      /* From now on we are in LL/SC context */
>>     41      this_cpu->ll_sc_context = true;
>>
>>     42      return ret;
>>     43  }
>>
>>
>> The exclusive lock at line 11 doesn't help if concurrent fast-patch
>> store at this address occurs after we finished load at line 13 but
>> before TLB is flushed as a result of line 25. If we reorder the load to
>> happen after the TLB flush request we still must be sure that the flush
>> is complete before we can do the load safely.
> You are right, the risk actually exists. One solution to the problem
> could be to ignore the data acquired by the load and redo the LL after
> the flushes have been completed (basically the disas_ctx->pc points to
> the LL instruction). This time the LL will happen without flush
> requests and the access will be actually protected by the lock.

Yes, if some other CPU wouldn't evict an entry with the same address
from the exclusive history...

Kind regards,
Sergey



reply via email to

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