> On May 30, 2014, 9:19 a.m., Ahmad Hassan wrote:
> > Hi Andreas,
> > 
> > According to the literature, both tCL and tWR should be independent of the 
> > memory technology because they are buffer constraint timings and they 
> > reduce the bandwidth (Source: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1555758). 
> > So tCL and tWR should not be used for distinguishing between read or write 
> > operation access latency.
> > 
> > Instead, the correct parameters to model read and write access delays in 
> > DRAM are tRCD and tRP respectively (Source: 
> > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1555758). But in the current SimpleDRAM 
> > DDR3 model of GEM5, I changed the following parameters to represent PCM 
> > read and write latency but I see almost no difference on the CPI.
> > 
> > 1) Increased the tRCD from 13.75ns to '61ns' (PCM is 4.4 times slower than 
> > dram for read operation)
> > 2) Increased tRP from 13.75 to '165ns' (PCM is 12x times slower than dram 
> > for write operation)
> > 
> > As I see no impact on CPI, does this mean these parameters are not modeled 
> > correctly in GEM5?  However, if I change these parameters in DRAMSim2, then 
> > I see the difference in average access latency.
> > 
> > Thanks
> 
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
>     Hi Ahmad,
>     
>     This is probably better suited for the mailing list.
>     
>     I agree with tCL, but when it comes to tWR I disagree with the statement 
> that it is technology independent.
>     
>     That aside, as you point out, tRCD and tRP are likely to change. I am 
> rather surprised that you see no impact in your experiments. Are you using a 
> recent version of the model (it is not called SimpleDRAM any longer). Also, 
> are you running in timing mode (sorry if this is a stupid question, but I 
> have to check). Finally, are you suggesting you see no difference in the 
> average latency with these changes?
> 
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
>     I ran a quick latency sweep and there is a tremendous change (as you 
> would expect). I am not sure what is going wrong in your experiments, and I 
> would suggest to start a thread on the mailing list if you don't manage to 
> work it out.
>     
>     Perhaps we should just close this patch? Sophiane, could you sort that 
> out?
> 
> Ahmad Hassan wrote:
>     Hi Andreas,
>     
>     I am using changeset 9975:6d17ec8df4c7. It seems to have new DDR3 model. 
> What benchmark are you using to validate the increase in CPI? Can I try that 
> benchmark to validate my configuration please?
>     
>     Thanks.
>

Hi Ahmad,

I would suggest to pop your patches and update to a more recent revision as a 
lot of changes have been made to the DRAM controller recently.

I am using a simple synthetic test with a TrafficGen that sweeps the requested 
bandwidth (10% to 100% of the offered DRAM bandwidth), and the sequential 
stride size (64 bytes to the page size), and then looking at the read latency 
distribution using a CommMonitor. I'll see if I can somehow make the script 
available.


- Andreas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2109/#review5110
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Dec. 6, 2013, 11:09 a.m., Sophiane SENNI wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2109/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 6, 2013, 11:09 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Repository: gem5
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This patch allows specifying different SimpleDRAM latency for read and write 
> access. (In the code, tCL parameter if for read latency and tCL_write is for 
> write latency).
> 
> Any feedback is welcomed^^
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/mem/SimpleDRAM.py 5e8970397ab7 
>   src/mem/simple_dram.hh 5e8970397ab7 
>   src/mem/simple_dram.cc 5e8970397ab7 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2109/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sophiane SENNI
> 
>

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

Reply via email to