Hi all, I would suggest we clear the page and start from scratch. To make it easier to read I’d also suggest to not mention the various Ruby protocols to just say “Classic” and “Ruby”. Any objections?
Andreas From: gem5-users <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Jason Lowe-Power <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Reply-To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 14 December 2016 at 15:25 To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [gem5-users] Does "Status Matrix" page reflect the current status? Hi Majid, It looks like you're running into a known issue. I think this is the patch that fixes it. http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2691/ Cheers, Jason On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 5:29 PM Majid Namaki Shoushtari <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Jason, Thanks for the info. I wonder if one of those corner cases affects the multithreading support on SE for x86 with classic memory system? Note 3 on the status matrix page states that "Classic caches do not support x86 locked (atomic RMW) accesses." Would that affect for example how mutexes are handled? I've tried running a very simple multithreaded microbenchmark that stresses the coherence logic. The benchmark works fine when I run it with arm+classic memory system and with x86+ruby. But with x86+classic memory system, I see incorrect execution. I'm using the very latest dev branch and se.py config file to create 4*4 mesh in case of ruby and 16 CPUs with crossbar in case of classic memory model. So, is classic memory system + x86 + multithreading + SE a combination that is expected to work reliably? Thanks, Majid On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Jason Lowe-Power <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Majid, The status matrix is quite out of date. I would take everything it says with a grain of salt. x86 works pretty well in SE mode with any of the CPU models. There are a few corner cases where there are bugs, but it's good enough that many people have been using it to publish papers for years. Cheers, Jason On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:30 PM Majid Namaki Shoushtari <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi there, Since the last time that the "status matrix" page was updated is more than a year ago, I thought I would ask if it still reflects current status? More specifically, I'm interested to know if X86 is supposed to work reliably with any of the timing CPUs in SE mode. Thanks, Majid _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users -- Jason _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users -- Majid Namaki Shoushtari PhD Candidate Department of Computer Science University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697 [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://www.ics.uci.edu/~anamakis _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users -- Jason IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
