Hey folks! If someone is going to look at these I can wait, but if not there's no point in just letting it sit there...
Gabe On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 4:23 PM Gabe Black <gabe.bl...@gmail.com> wrote: > For fans of the classics, you can look up my email with subject "Merging > of FS and SE mode" from 2011, but I suspect that's too old for most people > to have seen, and not completely the same as what I'm trying to do here. > This is the other half of the workload concept which is already applied to > FS mode, ie separating and modularizing the thing you're running from the > thing you're running on. The "hardware" like the CPU, memory, devices, etc, > is the same no matter if you're running SE mode programs, FS operating > systems, an OS from scratch, bare metal, etc. Then on top of that, you can > add a workload object which will load an OS for you like the system objects > used to do and the workload objects do now, or which fakes an OS kernel and > loads and coordinates SE mode processes which is what these new changes are > setting up, or sets up SE mode like hooks for a BIOS to implement to fake > power modes or BIOS interrupt routines for something like DOS, etc, etc. > > A long time ago I managed to break down the barriers between SE and FS > modes to the point where they could be combined into a single build, but > there is still a big FS/SE mode switch which means you have to pick which > one you want, and a decent number of places where global behaviors or > mechanisms are selected with that switch. These changes are a big step > towards not having that switch at all, and for SE mode and FS mode to not > be modes, but to just be handy labels to put on configurations which tend > to fit in certain categories. Other than just making gem5 cleaner and > simpler, this will also enable some configurations which are just not > possible today, like systems which fall outside of the FS or SE dichotomy, > or which combine them and have, for instance, an FS mode server connected > to SE mode clients over a simulated network. > > Gabe > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 8:06 AM Jason Lowe-Power via gem5-dev < > gem5-dev@gem5.org> wrote: > >> Hi Gabe, >> >> Could you give us some context to the 16 changes that you are going to >> commit without review at the end of the week? Starting with >> https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/public/gem5/+/33902/ >> >> I would like to review these, but I don't have any context as to the >> purpose. What problem are they solving and how do they solve the problem? >> >> Sorry that I missed these for two months. You've contributed over 116 >> changes in the past two months. That requires others to review about two >> changes per day. There's bound to be things that fall through the cracks. >> >> Thanks, >> Jason >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-dev mailing list -- gem5-dev@gem5.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-dev-le...@gem5.org >> %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s > >
_______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list -- gem5-dev@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-dev-le...@gem5.org %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
