----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/330/#review928 -----------------------------------------------------------
Do you have to always call wakeUpAllDependents? Initially it atleast was my hope that the per cache block wakeUpDependents would be sufficient. However, I could see that in certain situations where requets are stalled because a tbe entry is unavailable that the per address wakeUpDependents could lead to starvation. Do you think we should just elimiate wakeUpDependents and just use wakeUpAllDependents? - Brad On 2011-03-03 09:20:38, Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/330/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-03-03 09:20:38) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Summary > ------- > > This patch adds the stall and wait on the mandatory queue of L1 cache > controller of the MESI CMP directory protocol. It is intended to be > more of a discussion (so as to improve my understanding). > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/cpu/testers/rubytest/RubyTester.py 92229cb0cee9 > src/mem/protocol/MESI_CMP_directory-L1cache.sm 92229cb0cee9 > > Diff: http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/330/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > The changes have been tested for 16 processors for 40 different random > seeds with number of loads varying from a 1,000,000 - 4,000,000. The only > concern is that I had to change the dead lock threshold in RubyTester.py > which is surprising. > > > Thanks, > > Nilay > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
