----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3047/#review7240 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/mem/cache/cache.cc (line 1771) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3047/#comment6163> Is this correct? Does not seem to agree with your comment that we take the maximum over all caches. - Nilay Vaish On Aug. 19, 2015, 9:06 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3047/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 19, 2015, 9:06 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11058:55f9e34a82d7 > --------------------------- > mem: Make the coherent crossbar account for timing snoops > > This patch introduces the concept of a snoop latency. Given the > requirement to snoop and forward packets in zero time (due to the > coherency mechanism), the latency is accounted for later. > > On a snoop, we establish the latency, and later add it to the header > delay of the packet. To allow multiple caches to contribute to the > snoop latency, we use a separate variable in the packet, and then take > the maximum before adding it to the header delay. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache.cc 110cce93d398 > src/mem/coherent_xbar.cc 110cce93d398 > src/mem/packet.hh 110cce93d398 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3047/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
