On 2/17/21 3:15 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> This isn't aarch64-host-specific, though, is it? It's going to be
> the situation for any host with a relaxed memory model.
Yes. I intend to make the code-generation changes generic.
> Do we really
> want to make all loads and stores lower-performance b
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 at 04:31, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 2/16/21 8:15 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> With
>
> diff --git a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc
> index 1376cdc404..3c5f38be62 100644
> --- a/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc
> +++ b/tcg/aarch64/tcg-target.c.inc
> @@ -
On 2/16/21 8:15 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 16/02/2021 15.40, Halil Pasic wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
>> Thomas Huth wrote:
>>
>>> According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
>>> used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
>>> So far, we d
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 17:15:19 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> (Note: The virtio spec also talks about using a memory barrier
> >> *after* incrementing the idx field, but if I understood correctly
> >> this is only required when using notification suppression - which
> >> we don't use in the s390-ccw
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 16:15, Thomas Huth wrote:
> I was just about to reply that this is certainly not necessary, since
> the DIAGNOSE instruction that we use for the notification hypercall
> should be serializing anyway ... but after looking at the PoP, it
> actually is not marked as a serializi
On 16/02/2021 15.40, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
Pete
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:40:10 +0100
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
> Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> > According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
> > used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
> > So far, we did not do this in the s390-
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 14:37:22 +
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >
> > On 16/02/2021 15.32, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:30, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > >> Step 4 in "2.7.13 Supplying Buffers to The Device":
> > >>
> > >> "The
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
> used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
> So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
> Peter Maydell saw problems with the s39
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:35, Thomas Huth wrote:
>
> On 16/02/2021 15.32, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:30, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >> Step 4 in "2.7.13 Supplying Buffers to The Device":
> >>
> >> "The driver performs a suitable memory barrier to ensure the device
> >> sees th
On 16/02/2021 15.32, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:30, Cornelia Huck wrote:
Step 4 in "2.7.13 Supplying Buffers to The Device":
"The driver performs a suitable memory barrier to ensure the device
sees the updated descriptor table and available ring before the next
step."
I t
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 14:30, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> Step 4 in "2.7.13 Supplying Buffers to The Device":
>
> "The driver performs a suitable memory barrier to ensure the device
> sees the updated descriptor table and available ring before the next
> step."
I thought that my first time through the
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 15:21:45 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 16/02/2021 12.47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
> > Thomas Huth wrote:
> >
> >> According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
> >> used before incrementing the idx field in the "availa
On 16/02/2021 12.47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
Pe
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 12:00:56 +0100
Thomas Huth wrote:
> According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
> used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
> So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
> Peter Maydell saw problems with the s39
On 16/02/2021 12.43, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 11:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
Peter Ma
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 11:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
> According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
> used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
> So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
> Peter Maydell saw problems with the s390-ccw
According to the virtio specification, a memory barrier should be
used before incrementing the idx field in the "available" ring.
So far, we did not do this in the s390-ccw bios yet, but recently
Peter Maydell saw problems with the s390-ccw bios when running
the qtests on an aarch64 host (the bios
18 matches
Mail list logo
