> On Sept. 23, 2015, 5:04 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > So you are assuming that most ports do not need snooping.
The assumption (and common case) is that _some_ ports do not need snooping. > On Sept. 23, 2015, 5:04 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > src/mem/coherent_xbar.cc, lines 136-140 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3061/diff/1/?file=49127#file49127line136> > > > > Does the placement of these lines matter? Not beyond the fact that it has to happen in init when the ports are connected... - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3061/#review7252 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Aug. 21, 2015, 3:50 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3061/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 21, 2015, 3:50 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11064:900d7faf3522 > --------------------------- > mem: Only track snooping ports in the snoop filter > > This patch changes the tracking of ports in the snoop filter to use > local dense port IDs so that we can have 64 snooping ports (rather > than crossbar slave ports). This is achieved by adding a simple > remapping vector that translates the actal port IDs into the local > slave IDs used in the SnoopMask. > > Ultimately this patch allows us to scale to much larger systems > without introducing a hierarchy of crossbars. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/coherent_xbar.cc 842f56345a42 > src/mem/snoop_filter.hh 842f56345a42 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3061/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
