On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Brad Beckmann wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1443/#review3529 ----------------------------------------------------------- I have a couple questions: - Why do you modify the msg.sm files? It seems unecessary.
Each class that inherits from the Message/NetworkMessage class can potentially hold the <address, datablock> that needs to be accessed functionally. The question here is what assumptions do we want to make on these classes. I am trying to strive for a solution where we do not have any restrictions. For example, can we assume that each of these classes will have exactly one data block?
- How do you handle functional writes to message buffers no part of the network?
I am assuming that only other buffers are the ones in the cache/directory/dma/ controllers. A separate call is made to functionally access these buffers.
As you already know, I'm in favor of just creating a list of message buffers by modifying the MessageBuffer constructor. After seeing the number of files you had to change with this existing patch, I'm further convinced that is the better approach. This current patch seems quite hackish, and adding this support to Garnet is only going to be uglier. What can I do to convince you that the MessageBuffer approach is better? Or in other words, can you explain exactly what you don't like about the MessageBuffer approach?
I think that going via network is better. Firstly, the list that would need to be created for accessing the buffers in the memory system, already exists as part of the network hierarchy we have. Secondly, it seems to that it would easier to debug if traverse the network in a structured manner rather than traversing a flat list.
-- Nilay _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
