On 7/14/26 06:02, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
On 7/10/26 22:53, Richard Henderson wrote:
Use a balanced binary tree rather than a simple list for watchpoints.
Using an interval tree makes it easy to probe for any overlapping address.
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
---
include/exec/breakpoint.h | 7 +-
include/hw/core/cpu.h | 3 +-
accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c | 8 +-
accel/tcg/watchpoint.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
hw/core/cpu-common.c | 1 -
system/watchpoint.c | 43 ++++++-----
target/arm/hyp_gdbstub.c | 3 +-
7 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 101 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/exec/breakpoint.h b/include/exec/breakpoint.h
index bb7cbc626d..e0826a1a2d 100644
--- a/include/exec/breakpoint.h
+++ b/include/exec/breakpoint.h
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
#define EXEC_BREAKPOINT_H
#include "qemu/interval-tree.h"
-#include "qemu/queue.h"
#include "exec/vaddr.h"
#include "exec/memattrs.h"
@@ -36,13 +35,11 @@ struct CPUBreakpoint {
};
struct CPUWatchpoint {
- vaddr vaddr;
- vaddr len;
+ IntervalTreeNode itree;
vaddr hitaddr;
MemTxAttrs hitattrs;
- int flags; /* BP_* */
+ BreakpointFlags flags;
Should this go into 1/51?
unsigned id;
- QTAILQ_ENTRY(CPUWatchpoint) entry;
};
int cpu_breakpoint_insert(CPUState *cpu, vaddr pc, BreakpointFlags flags,
diff --git a/include/hw/core/cpu.h b/include/hw/core/cpu.h
index b8a1419860..7e19ea418d 100644
--- a/include/hw/core/cpu.h
+++ b/include/hw/core/cpu.h
@@ -525,8 +525,7 @@ struct CPUState {
/* ice debug support */
IntervalTreeRoot breakpoints;
-
- QTAILQ_HEAD(, CPUWatchpoint) watchpoints;
+ IntervalTreeRoot watchpoints;
CPUWatchpoint *watchpoint_hit;
void *opaque;
diff --git a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
index 2762cf6705..ab299387e3 100644
--- a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
@@ -682,10 +682,12 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_halt(CPUState *cpu)
static inline void cpu_handle_debug_exception(CPUState *cpu)
{
const TCGCPUOps *tcg_ops = cpu->cc->tcg_ops;
- CPUWatchpoint *wp;
+ IntervalTreeNode *n;
- if (!cpu->watchpoint_hit) {
Isn't it reasonable to continue checking for this, or can it never be
NULL if we come here?
Intermediate steps.
Before this patch we walk the entire watchpoint list performing this same clearing in
cpu_check_watchpoint. With this patch, we no longer walk every element in
cpu_check_watchpoint, but have not yet eliminated some manual checks for BP_WATCHPOINT_HIT
in the target code. By the end of the patch series, this loop is gone completely.
Helpful if I add a /* Will be cleaned up */ comment at this point in the series?
r~
