> On Nov. 4, 2015, 6:41 a.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
> > src/mem/cache/cache.cc, line 1097
> > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3156/diff/2/?file=51182#file51182line1097>
> >
> >     I'm confused as to why the writeback of tempBlock is treated 
> > differently from all the other writebacks.
> 
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
>     I am not sure I understand your question. Is it "why don't we just stick 
> it on the list of writebacks"?
> 
> Steve Reinhardt wrote:
>     yes, exactly
> 
> Andreas Hansson wrote:
>     It is all rather unfortunate, and largely due to how the atomic CPU calls 
> the I side and D side in the same tick, and does not let anything get in 
> between, unless we tamper with the event priorities. Ultimately the temp 
> block does end up in the writeback list, and we call the "normal" 
> doAtomicWritebacks.

I have added a more elaborate comment in the code now to clarify that the 
writeback has to happen _after_ the call to recvAtomic is completed, since we 
end up confusing the snoop filter otherwhise (we need to let a fill complete 
before we evict the block again).


- Andreas


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3156/#review7473
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Nov. 4, 2015, 12:52 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3156/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 4, 2015, 12:52 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Default.
> 
> 
> Repository: gem5
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Changeset 11195:8bf51d20200d
> ---------------------------
> mem: Add cache clusivity
> 
> This patch adds a parameter to control the cache clusivity, that is if
> the cache is mostly inclusive or exclusive. At the moment there is no
> intention to support strict policies, and thus the options are: 1)
> mostly inclusive, or 2) mostly exclusive.
> 
> The choice of policy guides the behaviuor on a cache fill, and a new
> helper function, allocOnFill, is created to encapsulate the decision
> making process. For the timing mode, the decision is annotated on the
> MSHR on sending out the downstream packet, and in atomic we directly
> pass the decision to handleFill. We (ab)use the tempBlock in cases
> where we are not allocating on fill, leaving the rest of the cache
> unaffected. Simple and effective.
> 
> This patch also makes it more explicit that multiple caches are
> allowed to consider a block writable (this is the case
> also before this patch). That is, for a mostly inclusive cache,
> multiple caches upstream may also consider the block exclusive. The
> caches considering the block writable/exclusive all appear along the
> same path to memory, and from a coherency protocol point of view it
> works due to the fact that we always snoop upwards in zero time before
> querying any downstream cache.
> 
> Note that this patch does not introduce clean writebacks. Thus, for
> clean lines we are essentially removing a cache level if it is made
> mostly exclusive. For example, lines from the read-only L1 instruction
> cache or table-walker cache are always clean, and simply get dropped
> rather than being passed to the L2. If the L2 is mostly exclusive and
> does not allocate on fill it will thus never hold the line. A follow
> on patch adds the clean writebacks.
> 
> The patch changes the L2 of the O3_ARM_v7a CPU configuration to be
> mostly exclusive (and stats are affected accordingly).
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   configs/common/O3_ARM_v7a.py 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/Cache.py 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/base.hh 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/cache.hh 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/cache.cc 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/mshr.hh 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/mshr.cc 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/mshr_queue.hh 2d1d51615e0e 
>   src/mem/cache/mshr_queue.cc 2d1d51615e0e 
> 
> Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3156/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andreas Hansson
> 
>

_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to