On 27/06/16 12:02, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Sergey Fedorov <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> From: Sergey Fedorov <[email protected]>
>>
(snip)
>> diff --git a/linux-user/main.c b/linux-user/main.c
>> index b9a4e0ea45ac..485336f78b8f 100644
>> --- a/linux-user/main.c
>> +++ b/linux-user/main.c
>> @@ -111,7 +111,8 @@ static pthread_mutex_t cpu_list_mutex =
>> PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>> static pthread_mutex_t exclusive_lock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>> static pthread_cond_t exclusive_cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
>> static pthread_cond_t exclusive_resume = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
>> -static int pending_cpus;
>> +static bool exclusive_pending;
>> +static int tcg_pending_cpus;
> I'm not sure you need to re-name to tcg_pending_cpus as TCG is implied
> for linux-user. Also they are not really CPUs (although we are using the
> CPU structure for each running thread). I'm not sure if there is a
> neater way to make the distinction clear.
How about 'tcg_pending_threads'? It is going to be used in system-mode
soon, so I'd like to keep "tcg_" prefix.
>
>> /* Make sure everything is in a consistent state for calling fork(). */
>> void fork_start(void)
>> @@ -133,7 +134,8 @@ void fork_end(int child)
>> QTAILQ_REMOVE(&cpus, cpu, node);
>> }
>> }
>> - pending_cpus = 0;
>> + tcg_pending_cpus = 0;
>> + exclusive_pending = false;
>> pthread_mutex_init(&exclusive_lock, NULL);
>> pthread_mutex_init(&cpu_list_mutex, NULL);
>> pthread_cond_init(&exclusive_cond, NULL);
>> @@ -150,7 +152,7 @@ void fork_end(int child)
>> must be held. */
>> static inline void exclusive_idle(void)
>> {
>> - while (pending_cpus) {
>> + while (exclusive_pending) {
>> pthread_cond_wait(&exclusive_resume, &exclusive_lock);
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -164,15 +166,14 @@ static inline void start_exclusive(void)
>> pthread_mutex_lock(&exclusive_lock);
>> exclusive_idle();
>>
>> - pending_cpus = 1;
>> + exclusive_pending = true;
>> /* Make all other cpus stop executing. */
>> CPU_FOREACH(other_cpu) {
>> if (other_cpu->running) {
>> - pending_cpus++;
>> cpu_exit(other_cpu);
>> }
>> }
>> - if (pending_cpus > 1) {
>> + while (tcg_pending_cpus) {
>> pthread_cond_wait(&exclusive_cond, &exclusive_lock);
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -180,7 +181,7 @@ static inline void start_exclusive(void)
>> /* Finish an exclusive operation. */
>> static inline void __attribute__((unused)) end_exclusive(void)
>> {
>> - pending_cpus = 0;
>> + exclusive_pending = false;
>> pthread_cond_broadcast(&exclusive_resume);
>> pthread_mutex_unlock(&exclusive_lock);
>> }
>> @@ -191,6 +192,7 @@ static inline void cpu_exec_start(CPUState *cpu)
>> pthread_mutex_lock(&exclusive_lock);
>> exclusive_idle();
>> cpu->running = true;
>> + tcg_pending_cpus++;
> These aren't TLS variables so shouldn't we be ensuring all access is atomic?
It is protected by 'exclusive_lock'.
>
>> pthread_mutex_unlock(&exclusive_lock);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -199,11 +201,9 @@ static inline void cpu_exec_end(CPUState *cpu)
>> {
>> pthread_mutex_lock(&exclusive_lock);
>> cpu->running = false;
>> - if (pending_cpus > 1) {
>> - pending_cpus--;
>> - if (pending_cpus == 1) {
>> - pthread_cond_signal(&exclusive_cond);
>> - }
>> + tcg_pending_cpus--;
>> + if (!tcg_pending_cpus) {
>> + pthread_cond_broadcast(&exclusive_cond);
>> }
> Couldn't two threads race to -1 here?
See comment above.
Kind regards,
Sergey
>
>> exclusive_idle();
>> pthread_mutex_unlock(&exclusive_lock);
>
> --
> Alex Bennée
