Re: [Qemu-ppc] qemu-kvm: Role of flush_icache_range on PPC

[Jan Kiszka]

On 2011-09-28 16:26, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 28.09.2011, at 16:23, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
> > Alex,
> >
> > we have this diff in qemu-kvm:
> >
> > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c
> > index c1e045d..f188549 100644
> > --- a/exec.c
> > +++ b/exec.c
> > @@ -3950,6 +3955,11 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr, 
> > uint8_t *buf,
> >                      cpu_physical_memory_set_dirty_flags(
> >                          addr1, (0xff&  ~CODE_DIRTY_FLAG));
> >                  }
> > +               /* qemu doesn't execute guest code directly, but kvm does
> > +                  therefore flush instruction caches */
> > +               if (kvm_enabled())
> > +                   flush_icache_range((unsigned long)ptr,
> > +                                      ((unsigned long)ptr)+l);
> >                  qemu_put_ram_ptr(ptr);
> >              }
> >          } else {
> >
> >
> > flush_icache_range() is doing something only on PPC hosts. So do we need
> > this upstream?
>
> This makes sure that when device emulation overwrites code that is already 
> present in the cache of a CPU, it gets flushed from the icache. I'm fairly sure 
> we want that :). But let's ask Ben and David as well.

/me wondered which write scenario precisely needs this. It could only be 
something synchronous /wrt to some VCPU. Which operations could trigger 
such a write? Does PPC inject software breakpoints in form of trap 
operations or so?

Mmm, according to our ancient recordings, the hunk above was once 
introduced for the sake of IA64: 9dc99a2823. I skipped it in my removal 
patch as it has some non-IA64 effect, at least potentially.

Jan

--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux