Hi Ali, So I compiled the linux kernel again, but the problem still appears. I tried disassembling the kernel and got the PC of the instruction which was creating the address with the value of R31. fffffc00006b3cbc: 40 06 80 21 lda s3,1600(v0) This is in a function e1000_probe, which is defined in drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c. I am not sure, would it be possible for you to send this particular file from your linux kernel and I can try building with that to see if it works?
Pritha On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Pritha Ghoshal <pritha9...@tamu.edu> wrote: > Hi Ali, > > I'll try that out, should I make a new repo under the repo.gem5.org? > > Pritha > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Ali Saidi <sa...@umich.edu> wrote: > >> It seems like it's broken at the time. Yes you could start with a the >> kernel source tar ball. >> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/longterm/v2.6.27/linux-2.6.27.61.tar.bz2 >> >> You'd probably need to turn that into a mercurial repository by creating >> a new repo and committing all the code and the apply the patch queue on top >> of that. >> >> Ali >> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Pritha Ghoshal wrote: >> >> Hi Ali, >> >> I was trying to compile the kernel again but I am not able to run this >> command: >> hg clone http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6/ >> >> Should I just download the kernel from the ftp repository? >> >> Pritha >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Ali Saidi <sa...@umich.edu> wrote: >> >>> Hi Pritha, >>> >>> I really don't know. The kernel I tried was 2.6.27.6 and is a the >>> mercurial repository of the linux kernel with the following patch queue >>> applied: http://repo.m5sim.org/linux-patches There is nothing in there >>> that touches the e1000 driver anymore. >>> >>> Ali >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2012, at 11:29 AM, Pritha Ghoshal wrote: >>> >>> 51061742000: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @e1000_probe+608 : ldq >>> r16,680(r11) : MemRead : D=0x0000000000000000 A=0xfffffc00070242a8 >>> 51061747000: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @tsunami_ioremap : lda >>> r1,-3(r31) : IntAlu : D=0xfffffffffffffffd >>> 51061747500: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @tsunami_ioremap+4 : sll >>> r1,40,r1 : IntAlu : D=0xfffffd0000000000 >>> 51061748000: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @tsunami_ioremap+8 : addq >>> r16,r1,r0 : IntAlu : D=0xfffffd0000000000 >>> 51061749500: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @e1000_probe+648 : stq >>> r0,752(r12) : MemWrite : D=0xfffffd0000000000 A=0xfffffc000722b930 >>> >>> So the address is actually coming from a modified version of the value >>> in R31. It is shifted left logically 40 bits and that's how the wrong >>> address is generated. This value gets stored in >>> address A=0xfffffc000722b930. >>> >>> I am still confused about how you don't see this error, do I have some >>> old versions of files? >>> >>> Pritha >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Ali Saidi <sa...@umich.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I wonder who wrote to A=0xfffffc000722b930 last. That would be the >>>> next step in debugging this is to understand where the address got >>>> initially generated from. >>>> >>>> Ali >>>> >>>> On Feb 18, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Pritha Ghoshal wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ali, >>>> >>>> So I think this is the relevant trace: >>>> 51061923500: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @e1000_probe+1412 : ldq >>>> r16,144(r30) : MemRead : D=0xfffffc000722b930 A=0xfffffc0007033c78 >>>> 51061927500: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @e1000_set_media_type+20 : bis >>>> r31,r16,r9 : IntAlu : D=0xfffffc000722b930 >>>> 51061942000: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @e1000_set_media_type+184 : ldq >>>> r16,0(r9) : MemRead : D=0xfffffd0000000000 >>>> A=0xfffffc000722b930 >>>> 51061943000: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @e1000_set_media_type+192 : lda >>>> r16,8(r16) : IntAlu : D=0xfffffd0000000008 >>>> 51061947500: drivesys.cpu + A0 T0 : @tsunami_readl : ldl >>>> r0,0(r16) : MemRead : >>>> >>>> The last line of code gets executed for the NSGige adapter as well, but >>>> the previous part of the code which sets r16, sets a different value for >>>> that adapter, as this is adapter specific code. >>>> >>>> I am not sure how to rectify the error still though.. >>>> >>>> Pritha >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Ali Saidi <sa...@umich.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If you get an execution trace right before this happens that might >>>>> shed some light on it. Tracking how the address that is being used is >>>>> assembled by the cpu is a good start. >>>>> >>>>> Nothing jumps out at me though, so I'm pretty confused why I don't see >>>>> the problem and you do. >>>>> >>>>> Ali >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Pritha Ghoshal wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >> Hi Pritha, >>>>> >> I took a old kernel from when i published the original paper in >>>>> 2009 (2.6.27) >>>>> > and it seems to work with the e1000 NIC if I just make the following >>>>> change: >>>>> >> diff -r ef8630054b5e configs/common/FSConfig.py--- >>>>> > a/configs/common/FSConfig.py Tue Feb 14 14:15:30 2012 -0500+++ >>>>> > b/configs/common/FSConfig.py Thu Feb 16 11:28:32 2012 -0600 <at> >>>>> <at> -58,7 >>>>> > +58,7 <at> <at> def makeLinuxAlphaSystem(mem_mode, mdesc = None): >>>>> > IO_address_space_base = 0x80000000000 class >>>>> BaseTsunami(Tsunami):- >>>>> > ethernet = NSGigE(pci_bus=0, pci_dev=1, pci_func=0)+ ethernet >>>>> = >>>>> > IGbE_e1000(pci_bus=0, pci_dev=1, pci_func=0) ide = >>>>> IdeController(disks= >>>>> > [Parent.disk0, Parent.disk2], >>>>> pci_func=0, pci_dev=0, >>>>> > pci_bus=0) >>>>> >> I don't know what kernel you're using but it's likely there is >>>>> either an issue >>>>> > with the configuration of it or perhaps something has broken in the >>>>> alpha >>>>> > branch. >>>>> >> From an Alpha/Tsunami perspective, virtual addresses that start >>>>> with ffffc map >>>>> > to physical memory directly and addresses that start with ffffd map >>>>> to the i/o. >>>>> > I'd have to look at the tsunami memory map documentation which isn't >>>>> close at >>>>> > hand to what 80000000008 could be, but it doesn't seem right. You >>>>> could use the >>>>> > PCIDev Ethernet trace flags to understand what addresses the PCI >>>>> devices are >>>>> > getting assigned. >>>>> >> Thanks, >>>>> >> Ali >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi Ali, >>>>> > >>>>> > I had tried using the same modification in FSConfig.py, and even the >>>>> kernel I am >>>>> > using in 2.6.27. Should I try to build the kernel again and check? >>>>> > >>>>> > Regarding the addresses, I used the flag BusAddrRanges, I am not >>>>> able to see any >>>>> > of the address ranges mapped to the IOBus which starts from >>>>> 0x80000000000. The >>>>> > closest one I can see is: >>>>> > 0: drivesys.tsunami.fake_OROM: registering range: >>>>> 0x800000a0000-0x60000 >>>>> > 0: drivesys.iobus: Adding range 0x800000a0000 - 0x800000fffff >>>>> for id 12 >>>>> > All the rest seem to be starting with 0x801**** instead of 0x800****. >>>>> > For membus this is the range: >>>>> > 0: drivesys.membus: Adding range 0x80000000000 - >>>>> 0xffffffffffffffff for id >>>>> > 2 >>>>> > So there is one range of addresses which are not mapped to anywhere >>>>> on IO bus, >>>>> > even though the >>>>> > IO_address_space_base = 0x80000000000 >>>>> > is set in FSConfig.py. >>>>> > But the mapping of addresses do not change from NSGigE adapter >>>>> mappings, and >>>>> > there is no error in that case. >>>>> > >>>>> > I enabled Fetch flag to see the addresses being accessed before the >>>>> error >>>>> > condition, and in the e100 NIC, this is the faulting address: >>>>> > 51061947500: drivesys.cpu: Fetch: PC:0xfffffc0000324800 >>>>> > 51061947500: drivesys.cpu: Address is fffffd0000000008, Physical >>>>> address >>>>> > 80000000008 >>>>> > >>>>> > But in the case of NSGigE, the same address brings forward a >>>>> different virtual >>>>> > address for the read: >>>>> > 51379655000: drivesys.cpu: Fetch: PC:0xfffffc0000324800 >>>>> > 51379655000: drivesys.cpu: Address is fffffd0009000018, Physical >>>>> address >>>>> > 80009000018 >>>>> > >>>>> > For the other cases, the sequence addresses are identical in case of >>>>> NSGigE and >>>>> > IGbE_e1000 adapters. eg: >>>>> > NSGigE: >>>>> > 51690478500: drivesys.cpu: Fetch: PC:0xfffffc0000319ce4 >>>>> > 51690478500: drivesys.cpu: Address is fffffc000085e208, Physical >>>>> address 85e208 >>>>> > e1000: >>>>> > 51061946500: drivesys.cpu: Fetch: PC:0xfffffc0000319ce4 >>>>> > 51061946500: drivesys.cpu: Address is fffffc000085e208, Physical >>>>> address 85e208 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Could you give any pointer regarding where this faulty address is >>>>> getting >>>>> > generated for this particular case? >>>>> > >>>>> > Pritha >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > gem5-users mailing list >>>>> > gem5-users@gem5.org >>>>> > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> gem5-users mailing list >>>>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>>>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gem5-users mailing list >>>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gem5-users mailing list >>>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gem5-users mailing list >>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gem5-users mailing list >>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-users mailing list >> gem5-users@gem5.org >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-users mailing list >> gem5-users@gem5.org >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> > >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list gem5-users@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
