On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote:
> Step back a little... the problem you're having is in the way that >> interrupts and squashing interact. You have fixed it by changing how >> interrupts are handled, but it probably could also have been solved by >> changing how squashing works (and I think that that was the direction you >> were headed initially, talking about changes to the isSquashAfter flag). >> > > I am not too confident that squashing working correctly can imply > interrupts are handled correctly. It might just work out. But as Gabe said > in one of his emails today, the condition for interrupt handling (instList > being empty) is broken. And this is independent of squashing. I agree that it seems that the interrupt handling code is a little more to blame, and your fix is probably the right thing to do (or at least it's trying to do the right thing). But nevertheless, the problem it was causing for you was in how it interacted with squashing. > Gabe is pointing out that there was an earlier, similar bug in the way that >> branch mispredictions and squashing interacted, that probably also could >> have been solved with changing how squashing works, in a way that probably >> would have addressed your problem too. >> >> I'm not saying anything about which solution is preferable, just trying to >> get you and Gabe to see more eye-to-eye (and maybe get everyone else on >> the >> same page too). >> >> > Steve, I don't think there is much to gain from this argument. We should > rather focus our energies on getting the O3 CPU to work correctly. In fact, > I need yours and everyone elses opinion on those other threads (check > pointing, interrupt handling) that are open. Let's just agree that both > squashing and interrupt handling mechanisms are broken and that they need > to be fixed. This was not intended to be an argument! It was intended to try and explain to you why Gabe saw the problem you were running into as being related to one he had already dealt with. It was not intended to come to any other conclusion than, as I said, to get you and Gabe to see more eye-to-eye and get everyone on the same page, so that future discussions can benefit from a common understanding and not be hindered by lingering beliefs that the person on the other side of the discussion doesn't know what he is talking about. I hope you don't feel that that goal is unworthy or impossible to achieve. Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
