----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3205/#review7813 -----------------------------------------------------------
I still find that the design needs a far better explanation, and at least one simple example. I would suggest implementing the SwapReq as an atomic op (as I guess it is our only example). Also, surely we need to impose restrictions on the granularity? If we use SwapReq as an example then things would be much more clear. I am also not sure about Joel's comments having been addressed. - Andreas Hansson On Jan. 6, 2016, 9:12 p.m., Tony Gutierrez wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3205/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 6, 2016, 9:12 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11280:f5e328bd5233 > --------------------------- > mem: support for gpu-style RMWs in ruby > > This patch adds support for GPU-style read-modify-write (RMW) operations in > ruby. Such atomic operations are traditionally executed at the memory > controller > (instead of through an L1 cache using cache-line locking). > > Currently, this patch works by propogating operation functors through the > memory > system. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/base/types.hh d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/abstract_mem.cc d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/packet.hh d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Exports.sm > d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > src/mem/request.hh d9a0136ab8cc4b3cf4821d064140b857e60db0dd > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3205/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Tony Gutierrez > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
