I'd have to look more closely to decide... I like having the common parts of simple-atomic and simple-timing factored out into the base class, so I'd hate to just completely throw that away unless it's really justified, but it's quite possible that the partition/interface between the base class and the derived classes needs to be rethought.
Steve On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Gabriel Michael Black <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe it should be separated from the simple atomic CPU again? That would > have made sense back when they were mostly the same, but they might be > different enough now that it just adds to the confusion. I'm not advocating > that necessarily, but it sounds like it could help. > > Gabe > > Quoting Steve Reinhardt <[email protected]>: > >> It could use some cleanup. The idea has always been that it's the >> simplest CPU that can drive the timing memory system, so there's no >> guarantee it will be simple in an absolute sense. But I'm sure it >> could be simpler if we worked at it. I think the combination of >> dealing with unaligned accesses and split-phase translations has >> definitely hit it hard. >> >> Steve >> >> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> My comment was more that we might want to re-evaluate the timing simple >>> cpu as it's left the simple bit a while ago. Many of the fault == NoFault >>> checks don't matter with the translation state change since it's always >>> going to return no fault. >>> >>> >>> I was hoping to get a discussion going about what if anything we should >>> do. >>> >>> Ali >>> >>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 5:29 PM, nathan binkert wrote: >>> >>>>> On a somewhat related note, it seems like the timing simple cpu control >>>>> flow has gotten pretty messy with the addition of the translation state >>>>> code. To figure out what is going on you really need a large white >>>>> board >>>>> and a lot of time to map out the call tree and what happens on faults >>>>> and >>>>> the like. >>>> >>>> Ali, >>>> >>>> If it is correct, can you commit the patch? If you're not the right >>>> person, Gabe? >>>> >>>> Nate >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
