> On May 12, 2015, 8:57 p.m., Jason Power wrote: > > What's the reason for not removing the latency parameter altogether in > > **this** patch? From what I can tell it's used in exactly one place: the > > parameter is taken from the L1 cache (or whatever has the mandatory queue) > > and used to add latency when the memory request is initially injected into > > Ruby. If you are going to default to 0, I see no reason not to just remove > > the confusion altogether. > > > > As far as I know, no protocol uses this parameter (correctly). Am I > > mistaken here? > > > > I really hate changes that force all of the protocol-specific python config > > files to change, but in this case I think it's worth it.
I cannot speak for all protocols, so I'd prefer not to make that change. If you and Joel are motivated to get rid of it, then please go ahead and post that patch. - Brad ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2796/#review6199 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 11, 2015, 10:21 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2796/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 11, 2015, 10:21 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10853:1ce6a4401f97 > --------------------------- > ruby: set default latency for ruby caches > > Set to 0 since many protocols do not use the parameter. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/structures/Cache.py fbdaa08aaa426b9f4660c366f934ccb670d954ec > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2796/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Tony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
