Sorry, try this one:
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v2.6.28.4/arch/x86/kernel/apic.c#L576
I copied the first one from the link itself. This one I followed the
link and copied from the address bar.
Gabe
Quoting nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org>:
That link doesn't seem to work.
Nate
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Gabriel Michael Black
<gbl...@eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
The function in question is here:
http://lxr.linux.no/linux+*/arch/x86/kernel/apic.c#L576
It looks complicated enough and does enough work that, to me, it doesn't
look feasible to fake, but you have more experience with these sorts of
modifications than I do. The function or perhaps macro that has the "pause"
in it is cpu_relax.
Gabe
Quoting nathan binkert <n...@binkert.org>:
It should be easy enough to measure the latency of a pause on a real
machine, but given the description and its purpose of avoiding memory
order violations, my guess is that the latency is in the 10s of ns,
possibly 100s.
That said, you should probably figure out a way to skip the function
entirely and save the time. In fact, it might be worthwhile to search
for pause in the code and skip all such functions.
Nate
Hey everybody. I'm currently waiting on x86 to boot under gdb where I'm
occasionally stepping in to see what it's doing. It's spinning furiously
in
a tight, three instruction loop while it calibrates the local APIC timer.
These instructions are:
pause
cmpl $0x19,0x2860b(%rip) # 0xffffffff80903438
jle 0xffffffff808dae24 <setup_boot_APIC_clock+142>
The second instruction checks to see if the loop can exit and the third
is
the jump back to the top. The first instruction, "pause", is supposed to
make the CPU hang out briefly where "briefly" is a small, possibly zero,
delay. For us, this could make M5 boot X86 faster because it means fewer
instructions would be executed waiting for timer interrupts and in other
delay loops.
I think the quiescCycles pseudo op function would make implementing this
behavior pretty easy, but then the question is how many cycles to wait.
Does
anyone have an informed (but not too informed) opinion about what an
appropriate number of cycles would be?
Gabe
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
