> On July 20, 2013, 10:05 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh, line 1820
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/diff/11/?file=36764#file36764line1820>
> >
> >     Will this not create problems?
> >     
> >     If there is a retry event scheduled, then surely we should not get 
> > another attempt at giving us a new packet. If we "sink" the second request 
> > then there will only be a single retry and the protocol would break down. 
> > Should this not say assert(!sendRetryEvent.scheduled()); and then schedule 
> > a send retry?
> >     
> >
> 
> Xiangyu Dong wrote:
>     I'm not 100% familiar with the packet protocol.  I will convert this code 
> from "if (!scheduled) scheduleRetry;" to "assert(!scheduled); scheduleRetry;" 
>  and see if the assertion fails.

I ran a local regression test with SPEC2006 workloads for several days, no 
assertion failure.


On July 20, 2013, 10:05 a.m., Xiangyu Dong wrote:
> > A few more things that are popping up. Thanks for all the updates. It would 
> > be great if Ali or Steve could also have a look before we ship this.
> 
> Amin Farmahini wrote:
>     Xiangyu,
>     (1) I think you consider a centralized MSHR for all banks. As far as I 
> know, most banked caches use distributed MSHR.
>     (2) I see that you reject a request if the corresponding bank is busy. 
> Now what about responses? Can a bank send back two responses at the same time 
> (one response for a hit, one response for a previous miss)? I think that is 
> allowed in your patch which does not seem right to me.

(1) I think the MSHR belongs to the upper level of the cache in gem5.  Which 
particular cache design you are referring to?  I can take a look to see if 
their L2 contains multiple MSHRs for different banks in L3.  Personally, I 
don't think so.
(2) No. a later patch (under my name) will also block the cache line 
installation if the cache bank is busy.  So, there won't be a situation where 
the cache bank is handling a hit and a miss at the same time.


- Xiangyu


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/#review4542
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 31, 2013, 9:52 p.m., Xiangyu Dong wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1809/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 31, 2013, 9:52 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Repository: gem5
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changeset 9818:d6c890fd0eab
> ---------------------------
> 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/CacheConfig.py 2492d7ccda7e 
>   configs/common/Caches.py 2492d7ccda7e 
>   configs/common/O3_ARM_v7a.py 2492d7ccda7e 
>   configs/common/Options.py 2492d7ccda7e 
>   src/mem/cache/BaseCache.py 2492d7ccda7e 
>   src/mem/cache/SConscript 2492d7ccda7e 
>   src/mem/cache/base.hh 2492d7ccda7e 
>   src/mem/cache/base.cc 2492d7ccda7e 
>   src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh 2492d7ccda7e 
>   src/mem/cache/tags/Tags.py 2492d7ccda7e 
> 
> 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