> On April 29, 2015, 7:06 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > Just a thought: should we move to reference counting for packets and > > requests? Have we discussed this before?
We have indeed had this point brought up quite a few times internally. I think it would make sense for the requests (but keep the packets untouched for now to avoid the performance hit). - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2724/#review6102 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 2, 2015, 9:31 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2724/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 2, 2015, 9:31 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10788:64f35601fa74 > --------------------------- > mem: Create a request copy for deferred snoops > > Sometimes, we need to defer an express snoop in an MSHR, but the original > request might complete and deallocate the original pkt->req. In those cases, > create a copy of the request so that someone who is inspecting the delayed > snoop can also inspect the request still. All of this is rather hacky, but > the > allocation / linking and general life-time management of Packet and Request is > rather tricky. Deleting the copy is another tricky area, testing so far has > shown that the right copy is deleted at the right time. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh 8a7285d6197e > src/mem/cache/mshr.cc 8a7285d6197e > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2724/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
