No, cache warmup will not use functional accesses. An important part of cache warmup is to put the protocol state machines in the correct state and, as you know, functional accesses can't do that. That being said, TraceRecord might be able to use the RubyPort rather than the Sequencer. What is the benefit of doing so?
Brad > -----Original Message----- > From: gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org [mailto:gem5-dev- > boun...@gem5.org] On Behalf Of Nilay Vaish > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 12:33 PM > To: gem5 Developer List > Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Ruby: Improving Simulation Speed > > Hi Brad > > Does it make sense that TraceRecord makes use of RubyPort instead of the > Sequencer? I think you mentioned previously that cache warmup would > make use of functional accesses through RubyPort. > > -- > Nilay > > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Beckmann, Brad wrote: > > > Hi Nilay, > > > > The TraceRecord object is used by the cache warmup mechanism. We > need to keep it, but we probably can modify it to work with packet. > > > > Can you post your patch? I would be interested to see the details. > > > > Brad > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: gem5-dev-boun...@gem5.org [mailto:gem5-dev- > boun...@gem5.org] On > >> Behalf Of Nilay Vaish > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:45 PM > >> To: gem5-dev@gem5.org > >> Subject: [gem5-dev] Ruby: Improving Simulation Speed > >> > >> I have a patch that makes changes to RubyPort and Sequencer. > >> Essentially, > >> it pushes the packet in to the Sequencer, instead of a RubyRequest as > >> of now. I tested the patch with streamcluster kernel from PARSEC. On > >> a run of > >> 3,000,000,000,000 ticks, I see an improvement of about 5.89% in total > >> simulation time. > >> > >> There is a catch. I have removed the TraceRecord facility from Ruby > >> for this. The facility currently relies on the fact that Sequencer's > >> makeRequest() function takes RubyRequest as argument. But since the > >> patch changes this argument to a Packet, TraceRecord will require > >> some changes. > >> I think the facility is not in use right now. It can be removed, or > >> else it can be changed to take Packet as argument. Any suggestions? > >> > >> Thanks > >> Nilay > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gem5-dev mailing list > >> gem5-dev@gem5.org > >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-dev mailing list > > gem5-dev@gem5.org > > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
