I agree that this patch seems wrong.  I don't fully understand the scenario
that this patch was intended to fix, and I wonder if it's not a problem
with the user specification and not with the code itself (i.e., the problem
description in the patch makes it sound like perhaps -I was being used
incorrectly).

Steve


On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Andreas Sandberg <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I started to run some simulations where I need to switch CPUs and I've
> recently just run into a couple of bugs related to draining. Both are
> pretty serious as they can potentially lead to very surprising when
> switching CPUs in the middle of a simulation where m5ops are used. I'd like
> some feedback on the proposed solutions before I post them for a formal
> review. I've split the description of the bugs into two separate emails to
> keep the email threads cleaner. This email discusses the second bug.
>
>
> The second problem is due to the code committed as a result of RB1462[1]
> (HG changeset 34e3295b0e39). The changeset introduces a check in simulate()
> that causes the simulation loop to only deliver the first exit event at
> every tick. I really fail to see how it can be correct for the event loop
> to only be allowed to execute one exit event per tick. It supposedly fixes
> "early termination in multi-core simulation under SE mode", but shouldn't
> this have been fixed by adding support for handling exit events in the
> simulation script instead?
>
> In my simulation runs I sometimes end up having an exit due to a finished
> drain scheduled at the same tick as an exit due to an m5fail pseudo op. I
> obviously want to know about the the second event as this tells me that my
> simulation failed and shouldn't go on wasting cycles. As far as I can tell,
> this changeset is obviously incorrect and should be reverted. Does anyone
> else have any opinions about this?
>
> //Andreas
>
> [1] 
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/**1462/diff/<http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1462/diff/>
> ______________________________**_________________
> gem5-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev>
>
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to