Yep.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Korey Sewell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
