Any comments? Can I push this?

Ali

On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Ali Saidi wrote:

> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/256/#review433
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> src/cpu/simple/timing.cc
> <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/256/#comment640>
> 
>    I still didn't fix this change, but it is fixed in my local patch
> 
> 
> - Ali
> 
> 
> On 2010-11-05 17:26:22, Ali Saidi wrote:
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/256/
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> (Updated 2010-11-05 17:26:22)
>> 
>> 
>> Review request for Default.
>> 
>> 
>> Summary
>> -------
>> 
>> ARM/Alpha/Cpu: Change prefetchs to be more like normal loads.
>> 
>> This change modifies the way prefetches work. They are now like normal loads
>> that don't writeback a register. Previously prefetches were supposed to call
>> prefetch() on the exection context, so they executed with execute() methods
>> instead of initiateAcc() completeAcc(). The prefetch() methods for all the 
>> CPUs
>> are blank, meaning that they get executed, but don't actually do anything.
>> 
>> On Alpha dead cache copy code was removed and prefetches are now normal ops.
>> They count as executed operations, but still don't do anything and IsMemRef 
>> is
>> not longer set on them.
>> 
>> On ARM IsDataPrefetch or IsInstructionPreftech is now set on all prefetch
>> instructions. The timing simple CPU doesn't try to do anything special for
>> prefetches now and they execute with the normal memory code path.
>> 
>> 
>> Diffs
>> -----
>> 
>>  src/arch/alpha/isa/decoder.isa 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/arch/alpha/isa/mem.isa 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/arch/arm/isa/insts/ldr.isa 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/arch/mips/isa/formats/mem.isa 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/base_dyn_inst.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/base_dyn_inst_impl.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/checker/cpu.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/checker/cpu.cc 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/exec_context.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/cpu.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/cpu.cc 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/inorder_dyn_inst.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/inorder_dyn_inst.cc 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/resource.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/resources/cache_unit.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/inorder/resources/cache_unit.cc 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/ozone/cpu.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/ozone/cpu_impl.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/simple/base.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/simple/base.cc 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/simple/timing.cc 9d60c5339ae5 
>>  src/cpu/static_inst.hh 9d60c5339ae5 
>> 
>> Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/256/diff
>> 
>> 
>> Testing
>> -------
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Ali
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> m5-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
> 

_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev

Reply via email to