> On Jan. 24, 2013, 9:14 a.m., Andreas Sandberg wrote: > > What's the point of the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? Is there anything > > preventing us from doing a squashAfter whenever there is an interrupt > > pending and interrupts are turned on again?
You will be throwing away perfectly good instructions that could be committed. - Ali ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/#review3895 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 22, 2013, 1:49 p.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 22, 2013, 1:49 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 9513:86c772cdcb3e > --------------------------- > cpu: Fix a livelock in the o3 cpu. > > Check if an instruction just enabled interrupts and we've previously had an > interrupt pending that was not handled because interrupts were subsequently > disabled before the pipeline reached a place to handle the interrupt. In that > case squash now to make sure the interrupt is handled. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/cpu/o3/commit.hh f9e76b1eb79a > src/cpu/o3/commit_impl.hh f9e76b1eb79a > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1660/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Ali Saidi > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
