----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2823/#review6488 -----------------------------------------------------------
Actually, upon second read... I'd like to remove my "Ship It" for now... Why are we adding a seperate "wakeup" call path? We have "wakeup" and "wakeupThread" if we add this patch. Is that really necessary? Why not have wakeup just accept a thread id to wakeup? For the SMT patches here, that's what I've done after adding per-thread intterrupt controllers, etc. So the interrupt controllers/memory system can directly wake the proper thread. From what I've seen in the code base, there is no reason to ever call "wakeup" without specifying a thread anyway. - Mitch Hayenga On May 12, 2015, 8:33 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2823/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 12, 2015, 8:33 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10866:4d871ca1c568 > --------------------------- > O3 CPU: Adding thread specific wakeup functionality > > The existing "wakeup" implementation was activating only thread 0's > thread context. This patch adds functionality to activate any thread's > thread context. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/cpu/base.hh fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > src/cpu/o3/cpu.hh fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > src/cpu/o3/cpu.cc fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > src/cpu/simple/base.hh fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > src/cpu/simple/base.cc fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2823/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Tony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
