Hi guys,
> Thanks for the clarification. I believe the RubyMemoryController is > completely Pareto dominated by the vanilla DRAMCtrl module, but if there > is any specific feature/setting missing I would be keen to know. > > If possible I would like to make sure we use the same controller as a > default for all timing simulations (even if the other one would be > maintained as a fallback). I'd like to second the desire to have a simple replacement baseline that performs at least as well as the RubyMemoryController in most/all cases: gem5-gpu now has more than 100 users, and as far as I know, we are all using Ruby and thus the RubyMemoryController. The RubyMemoryController is pretty simple to configure similarly to DDR3 or GDDR5 and to interpret results. It performs surprisingly close to some GPU hardware. If this controller goes away, I (and I'm sure other gem5-gpu users) would prefer to have something that is known to perform as well and is also easy to configure. I think we (the gem5-gpu crew) are fine with the RubyMemoryController going away eventually. However, given that there isn't currently a GDDR-like DRAMCtrl configuration in gem5, I'd like to second Nilay and Brad that we offer users sufficient time to prepare for RubyMemoryController removal. We will need to adapt our heterogeneous Ruby coherence protocols, and other users have their own protocols they'd need to adapt as well. Joel > On 10/13/14, 9:01 PM, "Nilay Vaish via gem5-dev" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >On Mon, 13 Oct 2014, Andreas Hansson via gem5-dev wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> With Nilay?s recent improvements to Ruby I would like to understand if > >> there is any point in still having the RubyMemoryControl, or if we > >> should just clean things up a bit and remove it. I would think the best > >> way forward is to clean up the integration of Ruby and classic and > >> ensure that there is no duplicated functionality beyond what is > >>strictly > >> necessary. > >> > >> Nilay, do you think this would make sense? Is there anyone else with > >>any > >> opinions in this matter? > >> > > > > > >I was in favor of dropping RubyMemoryControl. But I had some discussion > >with Brad Beckmann from AMD. Since AMD has some infrastructure in place > >already, they would like to retain RubyMemoryControl for the time being. > > > >I suggest that we retain the memory controller code in ruby for another > >six months or so, and then we will drop it. In the mean time, we > >will update the interface so that ruby protocols can use classic memory > >controller. The code for this is already on the reviewboard. Over this > >six month period, I hope, most users would have switched to using classic > >controller. > > > >Thanks > >Nilay > >_______________________________________________ > >gem5-dev mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > -- 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. > > ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590 > ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, > Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782 > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > -- Joel Hestness PhD Student, Computer Architecture Dept. of Computer Science, University of Wisconsin - Madison http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~hestness/ _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
