|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2006-10-07 01:43:04
|
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Edward Walker wrote: >>> I'm researching ways of adding speculative (or non-speculative) >>> parallelism into the translation-run component in Valgrind. >> >> Can I ask what is the motivation for this? I'm curious... > > The motivation is actually pretty simple: performance. I'm > investigating alternative BB issue techniques and methods for breaking > input/output/anti dependencies. The pervasiveness of multi-core makes > this very relevant and speculative thread speculation is just _one_ > possible technique which enables this. So you're trying to make Valgrind go faster, or dynamic binary translation systems in general? >> I don't think you're doing something trivially stupid, rather something >> that Valgrind is not at all designed to handle. Valgrind's execution is >> deliberately serialised, for reasons described in the first paragraph of >> section 2.3.9 in http://www.valgrind.org/docs/phd2004.pdf. I'm surprised >> it ran successfully for as long as it did. > > Sure. I'm in an area where I hear that comment quite often: "this > application can't be parallelized". I didn't say that. > Just curious if you have any ideas as to where this stack exception > could be coming from? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I don't > have this problem if I do it in QEMU for example, but valgrind makes for > a better platform to start from because of its more efficient > implementation. Alternatively, I'll be moving back to QEMU if this is > just not possible. I don't know. Others might. Nick |