> On 2011-01-03 10:14:44, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > > src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_token-L1cache.sm, line 972 > > <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/326/diff/2/?file=8135#file8135line972> > > > > These functions that take multiple pointers just so the called function > > can test which one is valid are pretty unwieldy and also seem to cause a > > lot of redundant testing. Can we factor out the check so we have a single > > test to set one valid entry_ptr variable, then use that in all these calls? > > I see there are some similar calls in MOESI_CMP_directory too, though not > > as many. > > Nilay Vaish wrote: > You should check my comment in the MOESI Hammer request why we cannot set > just one valid entry pointer. I am of the view that we should generate the > arguments for getCacheEntry() internally in SLICC.
I understand that you can't universally assume that there's just one valid pointer... I'm not asking to go all the way back to that. But it appears to me that there are a lot of places (regions of code) where you know that only one of N pointers is valid, yet you have to repeatedly pass all N pointers to each low-level function to figure out which one to use. It would be both more efficient and easier to read if, in those regions, there was one function up front that identified and selected the one valid pointer (maybe sticking it in a local variable), then the low-level functions were all passed that one valid pointer. Auto-generating params in SLICC would solve the readability problem but not the efficiency problem. - Steve ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/326/#review588 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2010-12-31 17:33:04, Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/326/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2010-12-31 17:33:04) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Summary > ------- > > This request for reviewing the updates to implementation of the MOESI CMP > token protocol. These updates have been carried out so as to conform with the > changes made to CacheMemory and TBETable classes, and to SLICC. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_token-L1cache.sm UNKNOWN > src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_token-L2cache.sm UNKNOWN > src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_token-dir.sm UNKNOWN > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/326/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > Changes have been tested using ruby_random_test.py for 1,000,000 loads and 20 > different seeds for random number generator. > > > Thanks, > > Nilay > >
_______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
