> On July 14, 2015, 9:39 a.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > Ship It! > > Andreas Hansson wrote: > Out of curiosity...since you added the isSupplyExclusive usage for > writebacks Steve, did you consider this option?
Probably not, else I might have done it this way from the start---it was long ago though so I don't recall precisely. - Steve ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2960/#review6768 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 13, 2015, 8:16 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2960/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 13, 2015, 8:16 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10923:70ae07d65378 > --------------------------- > mem: Transition away from isSupplyExclusive for writebacks > > This patch changes how writebacks communicate whether the line is > passed as modified or owned. Previously we relied on the > isSupplyExclusive mechanism, which was originally designed to avoid > unecessary snoops. > > For normal cache requests we use the sharedAsserted mechanism to > determine if a block should be marked writeable or not, and with this > patch we transition the writebacks to also use this > mechanism. Conceptually this is cleaner and more consistent. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh 58fbfddff18d > src/mem/packet.hh 58fbfddff18d > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2960/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > All regressions pass, and the random soak tests have finished >10000 > iterations without any issues. > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
