Hi Amin,

I think there are two things here:

 1.  don't use the cache line size as a "unit" in the DRAM model. We agree on 
this and your patch is a good start.
 2.  Should we drop peerBlockSize and put a cache line size parameter (or even 
compile-time constant?) at the system level?

Andreas

From: Amin Farmahini <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, 19 June 2013 11:30
To: Andreas Hansson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Nilay Vaish <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, gem5 Developer 
List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 1927: mem: replacing bytesPerCacheLine 
with DRAM burstLength in SimpleDRAM

I agree with dropping peerBlockSize.
For now, we only support cache line size of 64 (32-byte lines are also 
supported, but in terms of timing they are treated as 64-byte cache lines).
I don't like the idea of a cache line size parameter to the system. We should 
make DRAM model independent of cache line size. DRAM should not care what the 
cache line size is. DRAM controller deals with the memory request size, not the 
cache line size. Most SoCs are connected to devices with different cache line 
sizes.
If the request size is the same as dram burst size, then we are fine. If it is 
larger, then we panic. In the future, we can support splitting requests larger 
than 64 bytes.
[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
Forgot to send it to the group.

Amin


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Andreas Hansson 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On that note I'd suggest we completely drop the peerBlockSize and the
"impression" that we can have different cache line size at different parts
in the system. We could add a cache line size parameter to the system.

Thoughts?

Andreas

On 19/06/2013 11:14, "Nilay Vaish" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, Andreas Hansson wrote:
>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1927/#review4448
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> src/mem/SimpleDRAM.py
>> <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1927/#comment4174>
>>
>>    Hi Nilay,
>>
>>    You cannot compute this from params as the cache line size is
>>determined in the C++ code.
>>
>>
>
>This means that you are assuming what the cache line size is. In that
>case, I would rather have the cache line size as a param.
>
>--
>Nilay
>


-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium.  Thank you.



-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to