I think Lisa's "pythonic fix" is the one where we use the _numCpus value that's calculated entirely in python (including the +1 offset in FS mode) and don't attempt the automatic C++ technique that Korey proposed. Yes, that still involves C++ changes, specifically making everything in the C++ code just use the value passed in from python. That value is currently called _numCpus. IMO, _numCpus is not a good name, and while we're at it we should change it to be more descriptive, like _numSharers or _numSharingContexts.
Steve On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Korey Sewell <[email protected]> wrote: > I think "_numCpus+1" is the safe choice....Lisa? > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:01 PM, nathan binkert <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think the immediate fix is the pythonic fix from a few msgs ago. I >>> believe that's quick and easy. I think :). >> >> The fix has to be more than python. I'm talking about the original >> question. The stats use three different lengths: "_numCpus + 1", >> "_numCpus", >> or "maxThreadsPerCPU". Which one is correct? >> >> Are you healthy enough to fix this? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Nate >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> > > > > -- > - Korey > _______________________________________________ > 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
