By: , June 4, 2013 5:31 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
rwessel (robertwessel.delete@this.yahoo.com) on June 3, 2013 10:51 am wrote:
> With most SMT implementations (and other forms of multi-threading vary a bit), the load/store units don't
> really care much about threads. The dispatch unit will have assigned a rename register to the operation
> (and that rename register will *not* be used simultaneously in any other thread - an instruction using
> the same architected register in another thread would use a different physical register), and the load/store
> (or any other execution unit) will just use the assigned rename (aka physical) register.
Thank you for your post!
Oh I see, so they seemed to be scheduled in a way that they wont conflict. Thank you very much!
> With most SMT implementations (and other forms of multi-threading vary a bit), the load/store units don't
> really care much about threads. The dispatch unit will have assigned a rename register to the operation
> (and that rename register will *not* be used simultaneously in any other thread - an instruction using
> the same architected register in another thread would use a different physical register), and the load/store
> (or any other execution unit) will just use the assigned rename (aka physical) register.
Thank you for your post!
Oh I see, so they seemed to be scheduled in a way that they wont conflict. Thank you very much!
