I wouldn't mind adding an explicit master ID field to the packet, but that's not actually what I'm asking about. I'm suggesting adding a whole new message type (like the header messages vs the request messages) which describes what a particular ID represents. Obviously we don't want to send something like system.cpu0.itlb with every access, but that's way more useful than just the number 2, for instance. I'd like to embed a mapping between those in the trace rather than having to dump the table through some other means and to keep that alongside the trace for later translation.
Gabe On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Andreas Hansson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gabe, > > The pkt_id field was intentionally left up to the user to populate as they > see fit. Master ID, stream ID, or PC as in the case of the mem_probe used > by the CommMonitor. If you think there is need for another ID, then by all > means we should add it. The question is, could you use the ID that is > already there? > > If we change the format I agree we should make the field optional to not > deprecate old traces. > > Andreas > > On 12/09/2017, 00:24, "gem5-dev on behalf of Gabe Black" > <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi folks. I'd like to propose adding a new type of message to the > >packet.proto format used for protobuf memory traces. > > > >Currently, packet IDs are opaque numbers which in some hand wavy way > >"identify" a packet, presumably to say where that packet came from > >(instruction, bus master, etc.) Currently there is no in-channel way to > >map > >those numbers to something more useful like an object name. What are > >people's thoughs as far as adding a new message type which would provide > >that information? Off the top of my head, it would make sense to have a > >single message per ID, and to have a single "string" type field which > >would > >be used to describe the meaning of the ID in whatever way was appropriate. > > > >I haven't thought through the specifics very much, so suggestions would be > >very appreciated. Currently I've got a hacky side-channel way to preserve > >that information, but it would be less fragile and inconvenient if that > >was > >preserved directly in the trace itself. > > > >Also, would this warrant a new file format version number, or would the > >fact that the additional messages can be ignored with no ill effect let us > >keep it at the same number? > > > >Gabe > >_______________________________________________ > >gem5-dev mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
