Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 00:50:53 +0200 From: Johnny Billquist <bqt@update.uu.se> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_Fogelstr=F6m?= <pefo@opsycon.se> Cc: John Nemeth <jnemeth@victoria.tc.ca>, misc@openbsd.org, Otto Moerbeek <otto@drijf.net>, Ted Unangst <ted.unangst@gmail.com>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, Marcus Watts <mdw@umich.edu>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?H=E1morszky_Bal=E1zs?= <balihb@ogyi.hu>, rmk@rmkhome.com, netbsd-users@netbsd.org, Nikolas Britton <nikolas.britton@gmail.com> Subject: Re: wikipedia article Message-ID: <448F414D.7090302@update.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <200606131805.18778.pefo@opsycon.se> References: <200606131223.k5DCNkcB021980@toad.rmkhome.com> <200606131805.18778.pefo@opsycon.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Per Fogelström wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 June 2006 14:23, Rick Kelly wrote:
>
>>Johnny Billquist said:
>>
>>>>There's actually a cheesy way to do demand paging with microprocessors
>>>>that don't support demand paging (such as the original 68000--another
>>>>"16 bit" machine). The way to do this is to run two processors in
>>>>parallel but skewed by one instruction. If the first one does a bad
>>>>memory fetch, then the second one will not have fetched the instruction
>>>>causing the fault so contains restartable machine state. Masscomp sold
>>>>a machine like this once.
>>>
>>>Didn't the first Apollos do this?
>>
>>And also the Sun 1.
>
>
> IIRC it was simpler than that. When the first cpu caused a 'miss' it was put
> in wait and cpu 2 handled the pagein and then released cpu 1. Keeping the two
> cpus synched, one instruction apart would have been too complicated if not
> impossible...
Your idea will not work, as far as I can tell.
If the first CPU instruction execution causes a miss, the end result in
the CPU will be pretty undefined, and you cannot restart. That's the
whole point in why you'd have a second CPU shadowing the first one. So
that you'd be able to restore the state as it were before the illegal
memory access.
And that was the problem with the original 68000. On an illegal memory
reference, you would not know what state the CPU was in before the
instruction, so you could not back it up, and re-execute the instruction
after a page fault.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?448F414D.7090302>