On 18/07/2016 21:04, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> How much performance do we really need and how much performance can we
> loose introducing such a flag? We should yet gain something reducing
> tb_lock contention. Maybe it is worthwhile to use a dedicated flag to
> keep code more clear? There's always
On 18/07/16 20:58, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2016 19:31, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 20:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2016 19:25, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> @@ -753,14 +753,14 @@ static inline void
>> cpu_get_invalid_tb_cpu_state(target_ulong *pc,
>>
On 18/07/16 20:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2016 19:25, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
@@ -753,14 +753,14 @@ static inline void
cpu_get_invalid_tb_cpu_state(target_ulong *pc,
target_ulong *cs_base,
On 18/07/2016 19:17, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 18/07/16 20:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 18/07/2016 19:07, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>>> On 18/07/16 20:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 18/07/2016 18:57, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 18/07/16 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 18/07/2016 18:5
On 18/07/2016 19:31, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 18/07/16 20:28, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 18/07/2016 19:25, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> @@ -753,14 +753,14 @@ static inline void
> cpu_get_invalid_tb_cpu_state(target_ulong *pc,
> target_
On 18/07/16 20:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2016 18:57, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2016 18:52, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
So how are we going to use them?
>>> Instead of atomic_read/atomic_set when marking invalid TBs.
>> But shouldn't the
On 18/07/2016 19:25, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> > @@ -753,14 +753,14 @@ static inline void
>> > cpu_get_invalid_tb_cpu_state(target_ulong *pc,
>> > target_ulong *cs_base,
>> > uint32_t *flags)
>> > {
On 18/07/2016 19:07, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 18/07/16 20:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>> On 18/07/2016 18:57, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>>> On 18/07/16 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 18/07/2016 18:52, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> So how are we going to use them?
Instead of atomic_read/atom
On 18/07/16 20:22, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2016 19:17, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 20:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2016 19:07, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
On 18/07/16 20:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/07/2016 18:57, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 19:53, Pa
On 18/07/16 20:11, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2016 19:07, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 20:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 18/07/2016 18:57, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
On 18/07/16 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/07/2016 18:52, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> So how are we going t
On 18/07/2016 18:57, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 18/07/16 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 18/07/2016 18:52, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> > > So how are we going to use them?
> > Instead of atomic_read/atomic_set when marking invalid TBs.
> But shouldn't they be atomic to avoid reading torn writes?
On 18/07/16 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 18/07/2016 18:52, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>> So how are we going to use them?
> Instead of atomic_read/atomic_set when marking invalid TBs.
But shouldn't they be atomic to avoid reading torn writes?
Thanks,
Sergey
>
> diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exe
On 18/07/2016 18:52, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> So how are we going to use them?
Instead of atomic_read/atomic_set when marking invalid TBs.
diff --git a/cpu-exec.c b/cpu-exec.c
index fd43de8..1275f3d 100644
--- a/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/cpu-exec.c
@@ -292,10 +292,10 @@ static inline TranslationBlock *tb
So how are we going to use them?
Thanks,
Sergey
On 18/07/16 17:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
> ---
> docs/atomics.txt | 19 ---
> include/qemu/atomic.h | 17 +
> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
docs/atomics.txt | 19 ---
include/qemu/atomic.h | 17 +
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/docs/atomics.txt b/docs/atomics.txt
index c95950b..1f21d2e 100644
--- a/docs/atomics.txt
+++ b/docs/atomic
15 matches
Mail list logo
