Richard Henderson <[email protected]> writes:
> On 2/10/21 2:10 PM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Again there is no reason to jump through the nocache hoops to execute
>> a single instruction block. We do have to add an additional wrinkle to
>> the cpu_handle_interrupt case to ensure we let through a TB where we
>> have specifically disabled icount for the block.
>
> Can you say more about this? Because...
>
>> if (unlikely(qatomic_read(&cpu->exit_request))
>> || (icount_enabled()
>> + && (cpu->cflags_next_tb == -1 || cpu->cflags_next_tb &
>> CF_USE_ICOUNT)
>> && cpu_neg(cpu)->icount_decr.u16.low + cpu->icount_extra == 0))
>> {
>
> ... this does not appear to match. You're checking that icount has been
> explicitly *enabled*?
If icount has been enabled and we are using the default cflags or
enabled and we have the explicit CF_ICOUNT. The replay exception leg
explicitly disables icount because otherwise we'd never actually execute
the block because we have a budget of 0 cycles left. Previously we ran
that block at the exception handling point - now we fall through and
have to make sure we don't trigger an IRQ.
> Or am I reading the logic backward and only if icount is
> enabled will we take EXCP_INTERRUPT?
Or I guess we have an exit_request which hasn't been handled yet but
there is no EXCP_ pending.
>
>
> r~
--
Alex Bennée
