Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41201)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Pavel.Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>) id 1XwlXR-0003lZ-01
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:34:52 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Pavel.Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>) id 1XwlXJ-0004hl-Ge
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:34:44 -0500
Received: from mail.ispras.ru ([83.149.199.45]:55756)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Pavel.Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>) id 1XwlXJ-0004h9-8y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:34:37 -0500
From: "Pavel Dovgaluk" <Pavel.Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
References: <20141126103841.7772.11864.stgit@PASHA-ISP>
	<20141126103925.7772.13043.stgit@PASHA-ISP>
	<547EE34D.4000500@redhat.com>
	<000c01d00fb1$c2010860$46031920$@Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
	<548082E2.2060602@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <548082E2.2060602@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 08:34:37 +0300
Message-ID: <000301d0104d$29dc3d10$7d94b730$@Dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: ru
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v5 07/31] icount: implement icount
	requesting
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: 'Paolo Bonzini' <pbonzini@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, mark.burton@greensocs.com, real@ispras.ru, batuzovk@ispras.ru, maria.klimushenkova@ispras.ru, alex.bennee@linaro.org, afaerber@suse.de, fred.konrad@greensocs.com

> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini@redhat.com]
> On 04/12/2014 12:02, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote:
> >> > Why do you need to do this if !cpu_can_do_io(cpu)?
> > We save number of executed instruction when saving interrupt or exception event.
> > It leads to the call of cpu_get_instructions_counter() from cpu_exec function
> > (through several replay functions). It is correct (because no block is executing
> > at that moment) but is different to prior usage of icount requests.
> 
> Why is !cpu_can_do_io(cpu) if no block is executing?

Because it returns cpu->can_do_io which is equal to zero at that moment.

Pavel Dovgalyuk