That would be a good idea. How about Tuesday around 6:00? Gabe
Quoting nathan binkert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, I'll admit that I've had a really hard time following this whole > discussion. You could come over and we could actually spend a couple > of hours discussing this if you like. > > Nate > > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are multiple issues here, and I think they're getting mixed together. > > Unfortunately this is complex enough that it's hard to explain in an email. > > I'll try to explain it more fully sometime soon, hopefully with something > more > > expressive, although I don't know how much time I'll have before early next > > week. Ideally we'd talk about this in person with a whiteboard, but that's > > obviously not possible. > > > > Gabe > > > > Quoting Steve Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> I think maybe I got misled by the earlier discussion about keeping a > pointer > >> to the macroop in the thread context. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the > >> issue now isn't really about that pointer. The issue is that when a > series > >> of microops from a single macroop reaches the head of the ROB, and one of > >> those interior microops is marked as faulting, do I flush the preceding > >> non-faulting microops from the same macroop before invoking the fault > >> handler or not? > >> > >> If this is the problem, then it only applies to faults and not to > >> interrupts, since as we've discussed you'll never get an interrupt in the > >> middle of a macroop. > >> > >> You're saying that outside of this funky optimization for string moves > (and > >> maybe other instructions) then it's OK to always flush the microops. I > >> agree. > >> > >> Thinking about it a little more, I'd bet it's always OK to flush the > >> microops... looking at the string move case, you really don't care about > >> restarting the macroop that faults (since that macroop represents only the > >> last iteration of the REP)... what you really want to do is retry the > entire > >> macroop with the "safe" version of the microcode before you invoke the > >> actual fault handler. > >> > >> So is it that simple? Or am I missing something? > >> > >> Steve > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > m5-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
