> On Sept. 21, 2015, 8:42 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > Can we just prune the whole RubyMemoryControl rather? Has it not been > > deprecated long enough?
Unless I'm overlooking something, for Ruby users, I don't see other memory controllers that are guaranteed to work. Besides RubyMemoryControl, all others use a QueuedSlavePort for their input queues. Given that Ruby hasn't added complete flow control, PacketQueue size restrictions can be exceeded (triggering the panic). This occurs infrequently/irregularly with aggressive GPUs in gem5-gpu, and appears difficult to fix in a systematic way. Regardless of the fact we've deprecated RubyMemoryControl, this is a necessary fix. - Joel ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3116/#review7226 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Sept. 16, 2015, 6:07 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3116/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 16, 2015, 6:07 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11093:b3044de6ce9c > --------------------------- > ruby: RubyMemoryControl delete requests > > Changes to the RubyMemoryControl removed the dequeue function, which deleted > MemoryNode instances. This results in leaked MemoryNode instances. Correctly > delete these instances. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/structures/RubyMemoryControl.cc 62e1504b9c64 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3116/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > Compiled gem5.debug with --without-tcmalloc. Ran large tests with Valgrind. > > > Thanks, > > Joel Hestness > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
