Should not such an instruction be executed non-speculatively?
-- Nilay On Sun, 13 Nov 2011, Ali Saidi wrote:
I think this bug is just latently in the code right now and the branch predictor change runs into it (this patch causes that branch to be mispredicted). In any case I think the issue exists today and it's just luck that it works currently. Looking at your list I imagine you should be able to recover most things from the dyninst, however I don't know if that is actually the case. Excepted that the squashing mechanisms should be cleaned up, I'm not sure how that is actually going to solve the problem. Don't we currently send back the instruction? With the current instructions can't you figure out the macro-op it belongs to? Ali On Nov 13, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Gabe Black wrote:Hey folks. Ali has had a change out for a while ("Fix several Branch Predictor issues") which improves branch predictor performance substantially but breaks X86_FS on O3. It turns out the problem is that an instruction is started which returns from kernel to user level and is microcoded. The instruction is fetched from the kernel's address space successfully and starts to execute, along the way dropping down to user mode. Some microops later, there's some microop control flow which O3 mispredicts. When it squashes the mispredict and tries to restart, it first tries to refetch the instruction involved. Since it's now at user level and the instruction is on a kernel level only page, there's a page fault and things go downhill from there. I partially implemented a solution to this before where O3 reinstates the macroop it had been using when it restarts fetch. The problem here is that the path this kind of squash takes doesn't pass back the right information, and my attempts to fix that have been unsuccessful. The code that handles squashing in O3 is too complex, there's too much going in all directions, it's not always very clear what affect a change will have in unrelated situations, or which callsites are involved in a particular type of fault. To me, it seems like the first step in fixing this problem is to clean up how squashes are handled in O3 so that they can be made to consistently handle squashes in non-restartable macroops. Without having really dug into the specifics, I think we only need two pieces of information when squashing, a pointer to the guilty instruction and whether execution should start at or after it. It would start at it if the instruction needed to be reexecuted due to a memory dependence violation, for instance, and would start after it for faults, interrupts, or branch mispredicts. Any other information that's needed like sequence numbers or actual control flow targets can be retrieved from the instructions where needed without having to split everything out and pass them around individually. Is there any obvious problem with doing things this way? I don't think I'll personally have a lot of time to dedicate to this at the very least in the short term, but I wanted to get the conversation going so we know what to do when somebody has a chance to do it. Gabe _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev_______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
