> On July 19, 2013, 8:54 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > configs/common/Options.py, line 106
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/diff/10/?file=36722#file36722line106>
> >
> >     I'm tempted to say we group these based on L1, L2 and L3.
> >     
> >     Any other opinions on this one?
> 
> Xiangyu Dong wrote:
>     I see. But, should we have some mechanisms to let the command-line 
> override the default setting in Caches.py?

I was just thinking a simple grouping of the l1-xyz and l2-xyz options in the 
Options.py


> On July 19, 2013, 8:54 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > src/mem/cache/BaseCache.py, line 55
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/diff/10/?file=36723#file36723line55>
> >
> >     Is there a point in having these defaults if the command-line options 
> > override then anyways?
> >     
> >     Int -> Unsigned?
> 
> Xiangyu Dong wrote:
>     I see. You prefer to set the default in Caches.py instead of here, right? 
>  If so, I can move these default settings to Caches.py
>     
>     I checked other parameters, like mshrs, write_buffers.  They all use Int. 
>  So, I also use Int to make them look consistent.

I'd say: lead the way and do it properly.

There is no reason any of the former should be Ints (as far as I am aware at 
least).


> On July 19, 2013, 8:54 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > src/mem/cache/base.hh, line 292
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/diff/10/?file=36725#file36725line292>
> >
> >     I'd say do the rename as part of this patch.
> >     
> >     Anyone else got opinions on this one?
> 
> Xiangyu Dong wrote:
>     I've renamed all hitLatency to readLatency (except for tag and ruby 
> model).

Thanks!


> On July 19, 2013, 8:54 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh, line 1812
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/diff/10/?file=36727#file36727line1812>
> >
> >     if (blocked) ?
> 
> Xiangyu Dong wrote:
>     you are right. they are equivalent.

Yeah I just figured if (blocked) is more clear as that is really what you want 
to test (as far as I understand)


- Andreas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/#review4536
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 19, 2013, 11:13 p.m., Xiangyu Dong wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 19, 2013, 11:13 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Repository: gem5
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changeset 9816:2d9b611c12bc
> ---------------------------
> mem: model data array bank in classic cache
> The classic cache does not model data array bank, i.e. if a read/write is 
> being
> serviced by a cache bank, no other requests should be sent to this bank.
> This patch models a multi-bank cache.  Features include:
> 1. detect if the bank interleave granularity is larger than cache line size
> 2. add CacheBank debug flag
> 3. Differentiate read and write latency
> 3a. read latency is still named as hit_latency
> 3b. write latency is named as write_latency
> 4. Add write_latency, num_banks, bank_itlv_bit into the Python parser
> Not modeled in this patch:
> Due to the lack of retry mechanism in the cache master port, the access form
> the memory side will not be denied if the bank is in service. Instead, the 
> bank
> service time will be extended. This is equivalent to an infinite write buffer
> for cache fill operations.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   configs/common/O3_ARM_v7a.py 3b3b94536547 
>   configs/common/Caches.py 3b3b94536547 
>   configs/common/CacheConfig.py 3b3b94536547 
>   configs/common/Options.py 3b3b94536547 
>   src/mem/cache/BaseCache.py 3b3b94536547 
>   src/mem/cache/SConscript 3b3b94536547 
>   src/mem/cache/base.hh 3b3b94536547 
>   src/mem/cache/base.cc 3b3b94536547 
>   src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh 3b3b94536547 
>   src/mem/cache/tags/Tags.py 3b3b94536547 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Xiangyu Dong
> 
>

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to