While I don't know anything about this code it looks a little suspect
to me. Is there really a while (true) or is there some sort of while
(!empty)? Can the queues be appended to while you drain? If these
are both true, then you'll lose some of your enqueued messages.
Sorry if I'm uninformed.
> I thought of this a moment ago, so I have not confirmed this empirically.
> The CacheController's wakeup function includes a while loop, in which all
> the queues are checked. Consider the Hammer protocol's L1 Cache Controller.
> It has four incoming queues - trigger, response, forward, mandatory. The
> wakeup function looks like this --
>
> while(true)
> {
> process trigger queue;
> process response queue;
> process forward queue;
> process mandatory queue;
> }
>
> where process means processing a single message from the queue.
> I expect most of the messages to be present in the mandatory queue which
> processes the actually loads and stores issued by the associated processor.
> Would the following be better --
>
> while(true) process trigger queue;
> while(true) process response queue;
> while(true) process forward queue;
> while(true) process mandatory queue;
>
> I do not expect any improvement in case of FS profiling as most of the
> times, the mandatory queue has only one single message. But for testing
> protocols using ruby random tester, I do expect some improvement. In FS
> profile, after the histogram function (which takes about 8% time), the
> wakeup function's execution time is the highest (about 5%). For ruby random
> tester profile, the wakeup function takes about 11% of the time.
>
> --
> Nilay
> _______________________________________________
> m5-dev mailing list
> m5-dev@m5sim.org
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
>
>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
