Nate, are you referring to the CPU's state vs. the actual thread-object's state?
That connection between the two in my opinion has been ad-hoc for awhile or at least beyond my complete understanding. Changing things for FS breaks SE and vice-versa. Needless to say, we should probably get this straightened out and documented in the near future... On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:30 PM, nathan binkert <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that this stuff is all messed up. There's threads and cpus > each which have various states that don't necessarily work with each > other. Some of the states have to do with indicating that a CPU has > nothing to do at the moment so we don't need to schedule a tick, and > some indicate the type of stuff that Gabe is discussing. > > Nate > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Steve Reinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Recalling from some of the issues with getting O3 MT to work, I >> believe there's a general confusion and inconsistency with respect to >> the meanings of "suspended", "unallocated", and perhaps other states. >> It's possible (maybe even likely) that the code that does SE-mode MT >> apps like SPLASH has requirements that are inconsistent with FS mode. >> So there's no "right answer" short of figuring out how it ought to be >> and fixing the half of the code that assumes something different. >> >> Can you tell how it works in Alpha FS? Seems like x86 shouldn't be >> any different. >> >> Steve >> >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm trying to bring up SMP under x86 FS, and I'm not able to wake up >>> any AP because the wakeup function gives up if the CPU isn't suspended. >>> The CPUs I'm working with are actually unallocated, so nothing happens. >>> I had startupCPU set up to suspend the APs as the came up, but that >>> causes a problem with the simple CPUs which insist the thread is >>> Running, and again it's Unallocated. How is this supposed to work? Do I >>> have to activate and then suspend a context? Or did somebody just leave >>> a possible option out of an assert someplace? >>> >>> Gabe >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- ---------- Korey L Sewell Graduate Student - PhD Candidate Computer Science & Engineering University of Michigan _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
