Re: [Gems-users] SMT in GEMS2.1

[Luke Yen <lyen@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> If this is the case, the first assert should be:
>
> ASSERT( (cpuNumber >= 0) && (cpuNumber < system_t::inst->m_numSMTProcs) );
>
> instead of:
>
> ASSERT( (cpuNumber >= 0) && (cpuNumber < system_t::inst->m_numProcs) );
>
> Is it?
   You can change it if you want, but in any case the error condition you 
care about will be caught by the assertion on seq_index, since the 
assignment makes seq_index get the value of cpuNumber.
> (2) in system.C
>
> first, the numProcs is defined as:
>
> // establish how many processors there are in the system
>  int numProcs = SIM_number_processors();   //for SMT, this is the total
> number of LOGICAL processors in the system
>
> then,
>
> m_numSMTProcs = numProcs / CONFIG_LOGICAL_PER_PHY_PROC;
>
> I am confused here because numProcs is first defined as the total number
> of LOGICAL processors in the system. Is this the number of SMT processors?
> If so, m_numSMTProcs = numProcs / CONFIG_LOGICAL_PER_PHY_PROC doesn't make
> sense. It looks to me that numProcs should be set to the number
> of PHYSICAL processors initiated by simics, is it? Maybe I misunderstand
> the definition of LOGICAL processor?
   My definitions:
     Logical = total number of HW thread contexts
           (e.g. physical procs*(SMT contexts per proc), available to Simics for
                 scheduling)
     Physical = total number of physical procs (as seen by Ruby)

   Luke