Sujet : Re: Efficiency of in-order vs. OoO
De : mitchalsup (at) *nospam* aol.com (MitchAlsup1) (mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1))
Groupes : comp.archDate : 09. Mar 2024, 19:48:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Rocksolid Light
Message-ID : <41e768997f75a4ff03d6cebb499f03aa@www.novabbs.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
Scott Lurndal wrote:
mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1) writes:
>
>
For memory reads, the late failure generated by an uncorrectable
ECC error would probably have to be handled differently or there
would probably be little opportunity to exploit out-of-order
retirement. It might not be entirely unreasonable to treat such as
a fatal thread error that is asynchronous.
>
What about for memory stores where the ECC check on the delivered data fails ?? This seems to be just as fatal as a LD with an ECC fail.
As most stores are posted, the data stored needs to be 'poisoned'
so that any subsequent use of the data (e.g. a load) will report
a fault.
The LLC (or memory controller) can optionally support an interrupt
to management software to indicate that an uncorrected fault occurred; that
would, of course, be asynchronous and occur long after the
store had retired.
The Interrupt Tables are manipulated by LLC (set, clear) and this is
transmitted to CPU[*] by the cache coherence protocol (Invalidate Addr).