----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1155/#review2553 -----------------------------------------------------------
I'm a little confused... are you saying that we could initiate a page table walk for a page where there's already a walk outstanding? Under what circumstances does this come up? Wouldn't it be easier and make more sense just to suppress the later response than to delete an existing entry? Assuming this was causing problems before, is there a place we should add an assertion to catch future similar bugs (like someone implementing the TLB in another ISA trying to overwrite an existing entry)? - Steve Reinhardt On April 17, 2012, 5:45 a.m., Gabe Black wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1155/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 17, 2012, 5:45 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 8956:ce879248b675 > --------------------------- > X86: Clear out duplicate TLB entries when adding a new one. > > It's possible for two page table walks to overlap which will go in the same > place in the TLB's trie. They would land on top of each other, so this change > adds some code which clears out any potentially conflicting entries before > adding a new one. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/arch/x86/tlb.cc bbceb6297329 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1155/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Gabe Black > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
