> On 2010-07-10 08:52:15, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> > src/sim/eventq.hh, line 489
> > <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/diff/1/?file=755#file755line489>
> >
> >     I don't like getting rid of this assertion... it's actually pretty 
> > useful in knowing when something's not right.  You should add some code 
> > upstream somewhere to skip adding the event if we're already past it.
> 
> Timothy Jones wrote:
>     So the main problem with this assertion is that the event I'm trying to 
> add is triggered by an instruction count, not a certain Tick.  I'm happy to 
> either add code somewhere else to avoid adding old events or to put this 
> assertion back in and find a new way of adding instruction-count-based 
> events.  Which would be the preferred option?
> 
> Steve Reinhardt wrote:
>     I understand that... but even with instructions, I think you'd have the 
> same problem, which is that you're scheduling an event that's never going to 
> get triggered.  So if you want a callback after 1000 insts are executed, but 
> 2000 insts have already been executed, it seems like you'd still need to 
> check somewhere before you call schedule() and realize that there's no point 
> in calling schedule() because this event is not going to happen.  I don't 
> think instruction-based events should be treated differently.

I ran into this problem a few weeks ago and have just removed the assertion in 
my tree. It's not ideal, but i had no idea how to solve it in any generic 
fashion. The best I could come up with was adding a parameter to the event 
queue constructor that specified it wasn't tick based, although getting to 
current count to compare it to is still problematic.


- Ali


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/#review65
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-07-09 18:14:44, Timothy Jones wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-07-09 18:14:44)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> CPU: Add functions to get the number of executed instructions and set the
> maximum number of instructions to execute to the CPUs and allow them to be
> called from python.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/cpu/BaseCPU.py 249f174e6f37 
>   src/cpu/base.hh 249f174e6f37 
>   src/cpu/base.cc 249f174e6f37 
>   src/cpu/o3/cpu.hh 249f174e6f37 
>   src/cpu/simple/base.hh 249f174e6f37 
>   src/python/swig/sim_object.i 249f174e6f37 
>   src/sim/eventq.hh 249f174e6f37 
>   src/sim/sim_object.hh 249f174e6f37 
>   src/sim/sim_object.cc 249f174e6f37 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/51/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Timothy
> 
>

_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev

Reply via email to