On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Nilay Vaish via gem5-dev wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Andreas Hansson via gem5-dev wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>>
>> I see how functional accesses make sense when the system is starting or
>> drained, or potentially for reads while it is running. To inject functional
>>
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
>
> Marc Orr asked me the same question last year. I am pasting the examples
> I gave him:
>
> a. the data in the message is stale, but the sender does not know about
> it. Take a look at the MESI CMP directory protocol. In the case when an L1
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Andreas Hansson via gem5-dev wrote:
Hi guys,
I see how functional accesses make sense when the system is starting or
drained, or potentially for reads while it is running. To inject
functional writes at runtime seems like asking for trouble though. As
System calls can c
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
Everything you mention is already in place.
Great, glad to hear it. Sorry I don't keep up with the details of what's
going on inside of Ruby, and it's been quite a while since I've had an
in
*
build/SPARC/tests/opt/long/fs/80.solaris-boot/sparc/solaris/t1000-simple-atomic
CHANGED!
* build/ARM/tests/opt/long/fs/10.linux-boot/arm/linux/realview-minor-dual
CHANGED!
* build/ARM/tests/opt/long/se/40.perlbmk/arm/linux/o3-timing CHANGED!
scons: *** Error 1
scons: *** Error 1
sc
Hi guys,
I see how functional accesses make sense when the system is starting or
drained, or potentially for reads while it is running. To inject functional
writes at runtime seems like asking for trouble though. As Steve pointed out,
what is even the right thing to do for a real memory consis
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 6:35 AM, Nilay Vaish wrote:
>
>
>> Everything you mention is already in place.
Great, glad to hear it. Sorry I don't keep up with the details of what's
going on inside of Ruby, and it's been quite a while since I've had an
in-depth discussion with Brad on this.
> The
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Steve Reinhardt wrote:
Thanks to everyone, particularly Joel, for the discussion.
Joel makes a good case for having the option of a second copy of memory for
debugging and development purposes, and at first glance, Nilay's patch
seems reasonable to me. However, the backing
