----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3115/#review7289 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc (line 511) <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3115/#comment6184> Can we make the size a sensible value (a cacheline size)? - Andreas Hansson On Sept. 26, 2015, 12:11 a.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3115/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Sept. 26, 2015, 12:11 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11140:34b60f0ef0b5 > --------------------------- > ruby: RubyPort delete snoop requests > > In RubyPort::ruby_eviction_callback, prior changes fixed a memory leak caused > by instantiating separate packets for each port that the eviction was > forwarded > to. That change, however, left the instantiated request to also leak. Allocate > it on the stack to avoid the leak. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.cc bd894d2bdd7c > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3115/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
