Skip to content

Conversation

@Emin017
Copy link
Contributor

@Emin017 Emin017 commented Dec 23, 2025

This patch fixes a deadlock issue that occurs during long-running simulations where a large number of peek/poke/expect operations are performed.

Ref: #5128 and #5129

Contributor Checklist

  • Did you add Scaladoc to every public function/method?
  • Did you add at least one test demonstrating the PR?
  • Did you delete any extraneous printlns/debugging code?
  • Did you specify the type of improvement?
  • Did you add appropriate documentation in docs/src?
  • Did you request a desired merge strategy?
  • Did you add text to be included in the Release Notes for this change?

Type of Improvement

  • Bugfix

Desired Merge Strategy

  • Squash: The PR will be squashed and merged (choose this if you have no preference).

Release Notes

Reviewer Checklist (only modified by reviewer)

  • Did you add the appropriate labels? (Select the most appropriate one based on the "Type of Improvement")
  • Did you mark the proper milestone (Bug fix: 3.6.x, 5.x, or 6.x depending on impact, API modification or big change: 7.0)?
  • Did you review?
  • Did you check whether all relevant Contributor checkboxes have been checked?
  • Did you do one of the following when ready to merge:
    • Squash: You/ the contributor Enable auto-merge (squash) and clean up the commit message.
    • Merge: Ensure that contributor has cleaned up their commit history, then merge with Create a merge commit.

This patch fixes a deadlock issue that occurs during long-running
simulations where a large number of peek/poke/expect operations are
performed.

Ref: chipsalliance#5128
Signed-off-by: Emin <me@emin.chat>
@seldridge seldridge added the Bugfix Fixes a bug, will be included in release notes label Dec 23, 2025
Copy link
Member

@seldridge seldridge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this!

This is definitely an improvement. This also made me realize what I think the problem is... The issue is that if the command buffer gets too big, the C++ side will block once stdin fills. The real fix here is to have the C++ side not block waiting for the entire buffer, I think.

I do think that there is sill a failure mode here where a user does enough pokes to fill the buffer without a single expect/tick.

A few comments throughout. However, I'm good with this generally

Signed-off-by: Emin <me@emin.chat>
Signed-off-by: Emin <me@emin.chat>
@Emin017 Emin017 requested a review from seldridge December 24, 2025 02:04
Signed-off-by: Emin <me@emin.chat>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Bugfix Fixes a bug, will be included in release notes

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants