On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: > On 2012-05-24 09:08, Max Filippov wrote: >> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> wrote: >>> On 2012-05-24 07:51, Max Filippov wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: >>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com> >>>>> >>>>> tb_invalidate_phys_addr has to called with the exact physical address of >>>>> the breakpoint we add/remove, not just the page's base address. >>>>> Otherwise we easily fail to flush the right TB. >>>>> >>>>> Regression of 1e7855a558. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I fail to see how 1e7855a558 could introduce a regression, it >>>> just rearranged the code. >>>> Even more, AFAIK cpu_get_phys_page_debug returns complete physical >>>> address, not just >>>> physical page. Probably it has a misleading name. >>> >>> Unfortunately, cpu_get_phys_page_debug does NOT deliver the sub-page >>> offset, only the page base address. >> >> Ok, i386 has probably the most explicit implementation, >> let's look at the target-i386/helper.c:876 >> >> page_offset = (addr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) & (page_size - 1); >> paddr = (pte & TARGET_PAGE_MASK) + page_offset; >> return paddr; >> >> that's clearly physical page plus in-page offset. >> I can provide other samples (: > > "page_offset" is misleading: addr & TARGET_PAGE_MASK kills all the > offset bits. It will only contain the relevant bits between page_size > and TARGET_PAGE_SIZE. > > Check also ppc's cpu_get_phys_page_debug, it's clearer in this regard.
Ok, for i386, ppc, microblaze (and maybe others) you're right. What about ARM, CRIS, MIPS, SH4, xtensa (and maybe others)? Looks like this is a long-standing discrepancy and consequently a long-standing bug in the breakpoint_invalidate. -- Thanks. -- Max
