Peter Maydell writes:
> On 21 October 2017 at 15:05, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>
>>> On 15 October 2017 at 17:30, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
Thinking about it, shouldn't this always be the same given QEMU's TLB/page
table
consistency assurances?
>>
>>> What TLB
On 21 October 2017 at 15:05, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>
>> On 15 October 2017 at 17:30, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>>> Thinking about it, shouldn't this always be the same given QEMU's TLB/page
>>> table
>>> consistency assurances?
>
>> What TLB/page table consistency assurances?
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 15 October 2017 at 17:30, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Thinking about it, shouldn't this always be the same given QEMU's TLB/page
>> table
>> consistency assurances?
> What TLB/page table consistency assurances? For ARM at least
> we will only update (ie flush) the TLB wh
On 15 October 2017 at 17:30, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Thinking about it, shouldn't this always be the same given QEMU's TLB/page
> table
> consistency assurances?
What TLB/page table consistency assurances? For ARM at least
we will only update (ie flush) the TLB when the guest next
executes a rel
Emilio G Cota writes:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 18:07:16 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Emilio G Cota writes:
>> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:28:12 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> >> The API takes care of telling you if the access could be performed
>> >> successfully. If you access the instructi
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 18:07:16 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Emilio G Cota writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:28:12 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> >> The API takes care of telling you if the access could be performed
> >> successfully. If you access the instruction's memory representation at
Emilio G Cota writes:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:28:12 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Emilio G Cota writes:
>> > I see some potential problems with this:
>> > 1. Instrumenters' accesses could generate exceptions. I presume we'd want
>> > to avoid
>> >this, or leave it as a debug-only kind
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 02:28:12 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Emilio G Cota writes:
> > I see some potential problems with this:
> > 1. Instrumenters' accesses could generate exceptions. I presume we'd want
> > to avoid
> >this, or leave it as a debug-only kind of option.
>
> The API takes
Emilio G Cota writes:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 00:46:33 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Emilio G Cota writes:
>> > I'm not sure I understand this concept of filtering. Are you saying that in
>> > the first case, all memory accesses are instrumented, and then in the
>> > "access helper" we only ca
Emilio G Cota writes:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 21:03:39 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> I know it's not exactly the same we're discussing, but the plot in [1]
>> compares
>> a few different ways to trace memory accesses on SPEC benchmarks:
>>
>> * First bar is using a Intel's tool called PIN [2
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 21:03:39 +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> I know it's not exactly the same we're discussing, but the plot in [1]
> compares
> a few different ways to trace memory accesses on SPEC benchmarks:
>
> * First bar is using a Intel's tool called PIN [2].
> * Second is calling into
First, sorry for the late response; I was away for a few days.
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 18 September 2017 at 18:09, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>> It's also exposing internal QEMU implementation detail.
>>> What if in future we decide to switch from our current
>>> setup t
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 18:42:55 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 September 2017 at 18:09, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> > It also means we won't be able to "conditionally" instrument instructions
> > (e.g.,
> > based on their opcode, address range, etc.).
>
> You can still do that, it's just less
On 18 September 2017 at 18:09, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> TCI still has a separation of translation-time (translate.c) and
> execution-time
> (interpreting the TCG opcodes), and I don't think that's gonna go away anytime
> soon.
>
> Even if it did, I think there still will be a translation/execution
On 18 September 2017 at 18:09, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>> It's also exposing internal QEMU implementation detail.
>> What if in future we decide to switch from our current
>> setup to always interpreting guest instructions as a
>> first pass with JITting done only in the back
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 15 September 2017 at 14:39, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Peter Maydell writes:
>>> This looks like it's exposing too much implementation detail.
>>> We should just provide an API for "hook to be called for
>>> memory writes" which gets all the information when it
>>> is cal
On 15 September 2017 at 14:39, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Peter Maydell writes:
>> This looks like it's exposing too much implementation detail.
>> We should just provide an API for "hook to be called for
>> memory writes" which gets all the information when it
>> is called. I don't think we should e
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:57:45PM +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> +Event instrumentation
> +M: Lluís Vilanova
> +M: Stefan Hajnoczi
> +S: Maintained
> +F: docs/instrument.txt
Thanks for including me but I'm afraid I don't have time to co-maintain
the instrumentation API.
You could maintain it y
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:57:45PM +0300, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> +/* mandatory initialization function */
> +int main(int argc, const char **argv)
Most shared library plugin interfaces I have seen do not use "main()" as
the entry point. Instead they use a unique name that allows the host
Peter Maydell writes:
> On 13 September 2017 at 10:57, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Lluís Vilanova
>> ---
>> MAINTAINERS |6 ++
>> docs/instrument.txt | 173
>> +++
>> 2 files changed, 179 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644
On 13 September 2017 at 10:57, Lluís Vilanova wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Lluís Vilanova
> ---
> MAINTAINERS |6 ++
> docs/instrument.txt | 173
> +++
> 2 files changed, 179 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 docs/instrument.txt
>
> diff
Signed-off-by: Lluís Vilanova
---
MAINTAINERS |6 ++
docs/instrument.txt | 173 +++
2 files changed, 179 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 docs/instrument.txt
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index 36eeb42d19..fb0eaee06a 100644
-
22 matches
Mail list logo