[gem5-dev] Cron /z/m5/regression/do-regression quick

* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/minor-timing passed.* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/o3-timing passed.* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-atomic passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simpl

[gem5-dev] Kernel panic caused by changeset 10552

Hi everyone, I found "x86_64-vmlinux-2.6.28.4" panic when apply changeset 10552: cpuid, x86: Enabling more features in CPUid. (2.6.22.9 works fine) The gem5 also report "warn: x86 cpuid: unimplemented function 13", and kernel report BUG at arch/x86/kernel/xsave.c:323 as following. Can anybody ch

Re: [gem5-dev] Kernel panic caused by changeset 10552

Yeah, I was going to say something about that. CPUID shouldn't advertise features that we don't support. For instance, that change tells CPUID to say we support AVX, but the decoder has no idea what to do with those instructions and will trigger an exception if one is executed. I noticed a bunch of

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2549: ruby: ruby port: do not check for blocked ports

> On Dec. 10, 2014, 3:17 a.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc, line 372 > > > > > > So, I'm not sure I follow how this can work... The RubySequencer can > > still block a request if (1) a master is

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2557: x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/ --- (Updated Dec. 10, 2014, 10:11 a.m.) Review request for Default. Summary (updated)

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2557: x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/#review5663 --- Ok, now it's for real. Review away. - Gabe Black On Dec. 10, 2014, 10:

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2558: cpu: remove legion tracer

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2558/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10607

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2559: cpu: Put all CPU instruction tracers in a single file

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2559/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10608

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2560: cpu: Remove all notion that we know when the cpu is misspeculating.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2560/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10609

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2561: sim: Clean up InstRecord

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2561/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10610

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2562: arm: always set the IsFirstMicroop flag

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2562/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10611

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2563: cpu: add support for outputing a protobuf formatted CPU trace

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2563/ --- Review request for Default. Repository: gem5 Description --- Changeset 10612

Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs Intel)

Thank you for all the clarifications. I see that for SE to work on vmx the TSS limit had to be extended, am and wp bits in CR0 had to be reset and *_EFF_BASE registers had be set in addition to *_BASE registers for TR TSG IDTR. I wonder what is TR_EFF_BASE. It seems that the contents of TR regis

Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs Intel)

That's not actually extending the TSS limit, that's what it works out to be with the granularity bit set. The AM and WP bits were set to the wrong thing according to the comments next to them I'm pretty sure. If we wanted the other behavior, we might be able to change them back and have it work. Th

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2558: cpu: remove legion tracer

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2558/#review5665 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Gabe Black On Dec. 10, 2014, 5:54 p.m., Ali Saidi

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2559: cpu: Put all CPU instruction tracers in a single file

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2559/#review5667 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Gabe Black On Dec. 10, 2014, 5:54 p.m., Ali Saidi

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2561: sim: Clean up InstRecord

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2561/#review5666 --- src/sim/insttracer.hh

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2562: arm: always set the IsFirstMicroop flag

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2562/#review5668 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Gabe Black On Dec. 10, 2014, 5:56 p.m., Ali Saidi

Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs Intel)

I was testing this on both Intel and AMD platforms. The new code does seem to work for Intel platforms. The new code also seems to clean up a bunch of runtime warnings I was getting on AMD platforms. However the new code on AMD is either much slower, or it is stuck in a loop. A test that runs fo

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2560: cpu: Remove all notion that we know when the cpu is misspeculating.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2560/#review5669 --- Ship it! Interesting, I had no idea all that was still in there... good

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2558: cpu: remove legion tracer

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2558/#review5670 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Steve Reinhardt On Dec. 10, 2014, 9:54 a.m., Ali

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2559: cpu: Put all CPU instruction tracers in a single file

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2559/#review5671 --- Ship it! Might want to update the commit message to clarify that you're

Re: [gem5-dev] x86 SE kvm functionality (AMD vs Intel)

Thanks for the clarification, actually WP needs to be reset for CPU switching to work properly. I think it is better to leave alignment check off for SE mode as there is no handler in place for unaligned access exception. Alex -Original Message- From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@g

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2561: sim: Clean up InstRecord

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2561/#review5672 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Steve Reinhardt On Dec. 10, 2014, 9:55 a.m., Ali

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2557: x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/#review5673 --- There is some issue with AMD platforms. A test that used to run in 30 sec

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2557: x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs.

> On Dec. 10, 2014, 10:30 p.m., mike upton wrote: > > There is some issue with AMD platforms. A test that used to run in 30 sec > > is not finishing. > > > > hello world passes. SPEC apps hang. - mike --- This is an automatically gene

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2557: x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs.

> On Dec. 10, 2014, 10:30 p.m., mike upton wrote: > > There is some issue with AMD platforms. A test that used to run in 30 sec > > is not finishing. > > > > > > mike upton wrote: > hello world passes. SPEC apps hang. > Can you identify where it's getting stuck? It could be there's someth