Hi Nilay, A few more comments/responses:
- Good point about the possible hierarchy of Maybe_Stale blocks. My suggestion is to check that you only have one Maybe_Stale block in the situation where you have to satisfy a functional read with a Maybe_Stale block. Only in the situation where you have multiple Maybe_Stale blocks do you fail the functional read. - If you were to use the flat list approach, I believe you would avoid having to touch SLICC or the network. I agree that you still have to touch around half of the files that you do now, but I do think you'd see a significant savings in files modified and complexity. That being said, this is your patch, and you're going to own it. The final call is yours. Selfishly I really don't want to see the SLICC changes because I have a huge SLICC patch in the works that I'm going to have to rebase based on these changes. - In general, you need to add comments to this patch. I identified on particular set of functions on ReviewBoard, but there are many other places that comments would be appropriate. Brad > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:gem5-dev- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Nilay Vaish > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 10:24 AM > To: gem5 Developer List > Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request: ruby: augment network to support > functional accesses > > On Sun, 7 Oct 2012, Andreas Hansson wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > I am very much inclined to support Brad's approach, which doesn't care > > about the "physical" topology of the interconnect. > > > > Also, I don't want to de-rail the discussion, but an idea that I came > > to think of based on all my previous NoC work, do you really need to > > enquire the router network at all? Isn't the state always determined > > what the controllers and end-points see? What happens if the network > > only sees "packets" and has no clue about the actual higher-level > > messages (which is the case in plenty real NoC implementations)? > > > > There are several things that I believe you are missing out on. > > * The claim that the network does not need to enquired at all is incorrect. > It is > possible that the data is in some packet in the network, and hence the > network buffers need to be searched for that packet. > Secondly, it seems to me that the network hierarchy it self can store some > information that is required for making a functional access. I have not proven > this yet. > > * A real NoC implementation does not support functional accesses. Anyway, > I am not assuming any particular structure on the packets themselves, except > that they provide a function for making a functional read/write access. > Changes have been made to the higher level messages to support those > functions. > > * I have stated before that I am not opposed to having flat list of buffers. > But > it is not the approach that I prefer. > > -- > Nilay > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
