Yes to both. Ali
On Nov 6, 2012, at 6:14 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > > I see, so what is the default write policy for default cache in gem5? Is it > write-allocate? or no write allocate? I'm assuming it's write-allocate with > writeback cache? > > The gem5 site only says "The default cache is a non-blocking cache with MSHR > (miss status holding register) and WB (Write Buffer) for read and write > misses" > > Thanks > > Quoting Nilay Vaish <[email protected]>: > >> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Hi Nilay, >>> >>> Thanks for your reply. So when L1 is replacing a dirty cache block, L2 >>> receives a writeback request. Now if the cache block exists in L2, then we >>> have a writeback hit? and if not we have a writeback miss? >> >> I would expect that to be the case. You can confirm by exploring the code >> more. >> >>> >>> Then what is the meaning of "replacement: .... writeback" in the trace. Why >>> would we do a replacement of another block in L2? Don't we simply write the >>> dirty block back to main memory if it doesn't exist in L2? >>> >> >> This depends on the policy that is in place. If there is a miss when a block >> is being written back and the cache does not have space for it, then the >> policy might be to evict a block from the cache. Another policy, as you have >> suggested, would be to write the block directly to the memory. >> >> -- >> Nilay >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
