> On June 22, 2015, 5:06 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/network/MessageBuffer.py, line 39 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2845/diff/4/?file=46645#file46645line39> > > > > Why is a default recycle latency not set? > > > > Why is this "Parent.recycle_latency"? Does both swtiches and > > controllers define a recycle latency? It doesn't appear so with this > > patch. I'm a bit confused how this actually works. I do not believe > > switches will ever use recycles, so it doesn't make much sense to define > > this default in the switch parent. Also many protocols avoid using > > recycles. Those protocols should not need to specify a recycle latency > > either.
Here again, I just copied the convention that was used when these were in SLICC. Specifically, AbstractControllers require a recycle_latency to be defined, and it was used to set their MessageBuffer recycle_latency (you can see this in the SLICC code I removed in this patch). MessageBuffers in the network never set a default (was probably a bad idea). Here are the options for setting recycle_latency: 1) Define a default of the parent's recycle_latency parameter 2) Define a default of 0 If we go with (2), there wouldn't be a way to set a single recycle_latency for all of a controller's MessageBuffers. We'd need to explicitly set them all when non-zero. This sounds like it would result in tons of latent bugs. I think (1) is best: For MessageBuffers within controllers, recycle_latency will at least be set with the controller parent's value, and the user can explictly override this value by setting any particular buffer's recycle_latency in the config files. Network MessageBuffers should explicitly set recycle_latency to indicate that there is no latency. A possibility to address your desire would be to add, in SimpleNetwork and SimpleRouter, a recycle_latency parameter that defaults to 0. That way, the MessageBuffers would inherit these values and could still be overridden by a user. Would that be agreeable? - Joel ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2845/#review6548 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 20, 2015, 4:14 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2845/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 20, 2015, 4:14 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10859:d0dddb8fc9de > --------------------------- > ruby: Expose MessageBuffers as SimObjects > > Expose MessageBuffers from SLICC controllers as SimObjects that can be > manipulated in Python. This patch has numerous benefits: > 1) First and foremost, it exposes MessageBuffers as SimObjects that can be > manipulated in Python code. This allows parameters to be set and checked in > Python code to avoid obfuscating parameters within protocol files. Further, > now > as SimObjects, MessageBuffer parameters are printed to config output files as > a > way to track parameters across simulations (e.g. buffer sizes) > > 2) Cleans up special-case code for responseFromMemory buffers, and aligns > their > instantiation and use with mandatoryQueue buffers. These two special buffers > are the only MessageBuffers that are exposed to components outside of SLICC > controllers, and they're both slave ends of these buffers. They should be > exposed outside of SLICC in the same way, and this patch does it. > > 3) Distinguishes buffer-specific parameters from buffer-to-network parameters. > Specifically, buffer size, randomization, ordering, recycle latency, and ports > are all specific to a MessageBuffer, while the virtual network ID and type are > intrinsics of how the buffer is connected to network ports. The former are > specified in the Python object, while the latter are specified in the > controller *.sm files. Unlike buffer-specific parameters, which may need to > change depending on the simulated system structure, buffer-to-network > parameters can be specified statically for most or all different simulated > systems. > > > Diffs > ----- > > configs/ruby/Ruby.py d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Defines.sm d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/SConscript d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/MessageBuffer.hh d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/MessageBuffer.cc d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/MessageBuffer.py PRE-CREATION > src/mem/ruby/network/SConscript d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/simple/SimpleNetwork.hh d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/simple/SimpleNetwork.cc d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/simple/SimpleNetwork.py d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/simple/Switch.hh d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/network/simple/Switch.cc d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/AbstractController.hh d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/ruby/slicc_interface/AbstractController.cc d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/slicc/ast/ObjDeclAST.py d02b45a554b5 > src/mem/slicc/symbols/StateMachine.py d02b45a554b5 > src/python/swig/pyobject.cc d02b45a554b5 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2845/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Regression tests with all Ruby protocols. Protocol file changes are in > separate patch (http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2844/) to keep this one slim. > > > Thanks, > > Joel Hestness > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
