Right, I wasn't going to modify the hypervisor. But swizzling the numbers clearly affects the hypervisor because when hypervisor sends messages, the processor number is swizzled from 4 to 1. So, initially the hypervisor thinks that there are cpu #0 and #4, but then it probably receives some messages or whatever, which have cpu #1. So, I think the reason that the hypervisor reports that cpu1 failed to start is due to the confusion over the cpu numbers. Does this make sense?
So, if m5 shall use cou #0 and #1 internally, it should make sure that all the external messages are suited for the binaries form OpenSparc. Polin On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Ali Saidi <sa...@umich.edu> wrote: > The changes should only affect the portions of the system that the > hypervisor is calling. There shouldn't be any changes required within > the hypervisor code. > > Ali > > On Mar 19, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Polina Dudnik wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > So, to make sparc_fs work Ali and later I swizzled the processor > > numbers from 4 to 1 because m5 expects 1 and gets 4. In order to > > make this hack work, we also need to swizzle the numbers back before > > calling the hypervisor. So, the processor numbers going into the > > hypervisor should be swizzled back. So, in effect there should be a > > map which enables translation both ways. Does anyone know where I > > can start looking for calls to the hypervisor? Thank you. > > > > Polina > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > m5-dev mailing list > > m5-dev@m5sim.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
