On 11/30/18 9:56 AM, Aaron Lindsay wrote: > On Nov 30 09:13, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 11/20/18 1:26 PM, Aaron Lindsay wrote: >>> Setup a QEMUTimer to get a callback when we expect counters to next >>> overflow and trigger an interrupt at that time. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lindsay <alind...@codeaurora.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lindsay <alind...@os.amperecomputing.com> >>> --- >>> target/arm/cpu.c | 12 +++++ >>> target/arm/cpu.h | 7 +++ >>> target/arm/helper.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- >>> 3 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/target/arm/cpu.c b/target/arm/cpu.c >>> index 208a08e867..7311a48e3c 100644 >>> --- a/target/arm/cpu.c >>> +++ b/target/arm/cpu.c >>> @@ -827,6 +827,13 @@ static void arm_cpu_finalizefn(Object *obj) >>> QLIST_REMOVE(hook, node); >>> g_free(hook); >>> } >>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY >>> + if (arm_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_PMU) && cpu->pmu_timer) { >> >> No need for two tests here. Just check cpu->pmu_timer. >> (If it's set for any reason it should be freed, surely.) >> >>> @@ -1305,7 +1338,18 @@ void pmccntr_op_start(CPUARMState *env) >>> eff_cycles /= 64; >>> } >>> >>> - env->cp15.c15_ccnt = eff_cycles - env->cp15.c15_ccnt_delta; >>> + uint64_t new_pmccntr = eff_cycles - env->cp15.c15_ccnt_delta; >>> + >>> + unsigned int overflow_bit = (env->cp15.c9_pmcr & PMCRLC) ? 63 : 31; >>> + uint64_t overflow_mask = (uint64_t)1 << overflow_bit; >>> + if (!(new_pmccntr & overflow_mask) && >>> + (env->cp15.c15_ccnt & overflow_mask)) { >> >> Fyi, this expression is >> >> env->cp15.c15_ccnt & ~new_pmccntr & overflow_mask >> >>> + env->cp15.c9_pmovsr |= (1 << 31); >>> + new_pmccntr &= ~overflow_mask; >> >> Why this line? You just checked that overflow_mask was unset in new_pmccntr >> above. > > This ensures that when overflow_bit == 31 (because PMCR.LC is not set) > the high 32 bits remain 0 even after an overflow has occurred. As you > point out, it's silly when overflow_bit == 64, but I didn't think it was > worth the extra conditional to avoid it.
Eh? But we've set overflow_mask based on PMCR.LC, so what you say here doesn't make sense. > Thanks for your review. I'll take a look at your suggested logic > simplifications for v9, do you think that this patch looks OK at the > big-picture level? Yes, big picture looks good. r~