Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2861: sim: Refactor the serialization base class

> On July 4, 2015, 8:15 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > src/sim/serialize.hh, line 337 > > > > > > Is there a plan in place to change the objects that use this? If not > > (i.e., if there's a legitimate need for some objec

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2874: sim: Decouple draining from the SimObject hierarchy

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2874/ --- (Updated July 6, 2015, 11:43 a.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2875: sim: Refactor and simplify the drain API

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2875/ --- (Updated July 6, 2015, 11:43 a.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

[gem5-dev] Comm monitor patches ready to go

Hi Everyone, The following patches have been on review board for close to three weeks now without receiving any reviews. They are all fairly minor and only affect the CommMonitor. I'm planning to push them on Friday unless someone asks me to wait. mem: Cleanup CommMonitor in preparation for prob

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2828: cpu: implements vector registers

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715 --- These are my current thoughts about this patch: 1. My impression is that

Re: [gem5-dev] X86 FS regression test fails on OSX with "Abort trap: 6" error

Cagdas, I just tried to run the quick x86 regressions using a gem5 compiled with clang 3.5 on Linux and ran into a similar problem. In my case, the tests segfault, but all the other symptoms seem identical. An interesting observation is that /all/ the other backends run their quick regressions ju

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2828: cpu: implements vector registers

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Giacomo Gabrielli wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715 --- These are my current thou

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2908: ruby: Fix checkpointing and restore

> On July 3, 2015, 4:24 p.m., Jason Power wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > > > Sorry to come back to this patch, but I just applied it and tried to test > > it and ran into a problem. When restoring the original event queue in line > > 187 of System.cc, I get an error that the event is already on the ev

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2890: mem: Cleanup CommMonitor in preparation for probe support

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2890/#review6716 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Nilay Vaish On June 17, 2015, 6:43 a.m., Andreas

[gem5-dev] changeset in gem5: mem: Cleanup CommMonitor in preparation for p...

changeset 36b9241fa027 in /z/repo/gem5 details: http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=36b9241fa027 description: mem: Cleanup CommMonitor in preparation for probe support Make configuration parameters constant and get rid of an unnecessary dependency on the Time class

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2874: sim: Decouple draining from the SimObject hierarchy

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2874/#review6718 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Steve Reinhardt On July 6, 2015, 3:43 a.m., Andre

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2875: sim: Refactor and simplify the drain API

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2875/#review6719 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Steve Reinhardt On July 6, 2015, 3:43 a.m., Andre

Re: [gem5-dev] X86 FS regression test fails on OSX with "Abort trap: 6" error

Thank you for reproducing the issue Andreas! Any suggestions on how to get to the core of it? I have not gotten an attack plan yet, so open to any recommendations ;) Cagdas -Original Message- From: gem5-dev [mailto:gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Sandberg Sent: Monday, J

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2861: sim: Refactor the serialization base class

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2861/ --- (Updated July 6, 2015, 5:15 p.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

[gem5-dev] gem5 Governance document ratification

Hello all, First, I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to the document so far. We've had a lot of good conversations, and I think we've created a solid footing for gem5 to stand on in the future. The next step is finalizing the document. I see two different ways to achieve this. 1) Form

Re: [gem5-dev] pd-gem5: simulating a parallel/distributed system on multiple physical hosts

Thank you Steve for the detailed elaboration on the issues. Regarding the “unsynchronized checkpoints”, the terminology might be a bit confusing. In fact, we always need to do a global synchronization among the gem5 processes before taking a distributed checkpoint (in order to avoid in-flight pac

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2828: cpu: implements vector registers

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Nilay Vaish wrote: On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Giacomo Gabrielli wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715 --

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2928: mem: add a base packet class

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2928/#review6694 --- Hi Nilay, Can you please wait for atgutier's patches (r/2775 to r/2814) t

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2928: mem: add a base packet class

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Sooraj Puthoor wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2928/#review6694 --- Hi Nilay, Can you please wai

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2902: ruby: removes g_system_ptr and replaces with object based references

> On July 2, 2015, 5:31 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/structures/BankedArray.cc, line 74 > > > > > > I strongly suggest that you write a patch that is applied before this > > ruby system patch. The new patch wou

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2902: ruby: removes g_system_ptr and replaces with object based references

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Brandon Potter wrote: On July 2, 2015, 5:31 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: src/mem/ruby/structures/BankedArray.cc, line 74 I strongly suggest that you write a patch that is applied before this ruby sys

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2828: cpu: implements vector registers

> On July 6, 2015, 12:42 p.m., Giacomo Gabrielli wrote: > > These are my current thoughts about this patch: > > > > 1. My impression is that there is still not enough architectural support to > > understand if the new vector register type as it stands can address all the > > different corner ca

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2827: x86: decode instructions with vex prefix

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2827/#review6722 --- I see incremental changes between revisions and plenty of vector instruct

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2928: mem: add a base packet class

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2928/#review6723 --- I'm not too fond of how this is done, since it essentially creates a base

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2827: x86: decode instructions with vex prefix

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Alexandru Dutu wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2827/#review6722 --- I see incremental changes be

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2828: cpu: implements vector registers

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Alexandru Dutu wrote: On July 6, 2015, 12:42 p.m., Giacomo Gabrielli wrote: These are my current thoughts about this patch: 1. My impression is that there is still not enough architectural support to understand if the new vector register type as it stands can address al

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2828: cpu: implements vector registers

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Giacomo Gabrielli wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2828/#review6715 --- These are my current thou

Re: [gem5-dev] pd-gem5: simulating a parallel/distributed system on multiple physical hosts

Gabor- My concern about unsync checkpoint is that when you restore from an unsync checkpoint, you'll have gem5 processes that each is running in different tick. Then how do you handle accurate delivery of packets between these gem5 processes? It will also make it harder to integrate multi/pd-gem5 w