> On July 16, 2015, 9:55 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > Could you elaborate on when this is a problem? Why is this only affecting 
> > o3?
> 
> Hongil Yoon wrote:
>     This may affect other CPU models (e.g. minor). I am not familiar with it, 
> so I need to read codes.
> 
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
>     What ever test case you used for the o3, could you run it on the other 
> CPUs as well? Thanks

I will check whether the other CPUs, e.g., minor cpu, are affected by this 
issue.


- Hongil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2975/#review6780
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 17, 2015, 10:13 p.m., Hongil Yoon wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2975/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 17, 2015, 10:13 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Repository: gem5
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changeset 10917:331f426b24a7
> ---------------------------
> cpu, o3: consider split requests for LSQ checksnoop operations
> 
> This patch enables instructions in LSQ to track two physical addresses for 
> corresponding two split requests. Later, the information is used in 
> checksnoop() to search for/invalidate the corresponding LD instructions.
> 
> The current implementation has kept track of only the physical address that 
> is referenced by the first split request. Thus, for checksnoop(), the line 
> accessed by the second request has not been considered, causing potential 
> correctness issues.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/cpu/base_dyn_inst.hh 5c76426fd9ee 
>   src/cpu/base_dyn_inst_impl.hh 5c76426fd9ee 
>   src/cpu/o3/iew_impl.hh 5c76426fd9ee 
>   src/cpu/o3/lsq_unit_impl.hh 5c76426fd9ee 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2975/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> booting o3 with the classic-memory model was done without any issues (single 
> core, x86).
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hongil Yoon
> 
>

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to