> 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?
> 
> Ali Saidi wrote:
>     You will be throwing away perfectly good instructions that could be 
> committed.
> 
> Andreas Sandberg wrote:
>     Isn't this a very uncommon situation or am I missing something?
>     
>     Another question I have is how this affects x86. IIRC, the original patch 
> broke (not just timing) some test cases on x86. Have you made sure that the 
> x86 test cases pass even without the avoidQuiesceLiveLock flag? I suspect 
> that, if there is a bug, that might be hidden by the flag.

the original patch that you wrote didn't check for micro-ops.


- 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

Reply via email to