Hi Sophiane,

The cache is pretty good at the configuration it currently captures, where the 
various latencies “align” in a specific way.

Note that the latencies in the actual C++ class are already broken out: 
lookupLatency, forwardLatency, fillLatency, and responseLatency. These 
components are simply not exposed in the Python class, and not applied 
consistently throughout the code. If you can take a stab at this that would be 
great.

Thanks,

Andreas

From: senni sophiane <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Friday, 3 June 2016 at 15:06
To: Andreas Hansson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: Parallel and Sequential access for cache


Thanks Andreas.

Yes, I can have a look.

What do you mean by "It is doing an ok job at a very specific timing behaviour" 
? Can you explain, please ? Maybe through an example ? So, I can understand 
what is (and is not) taken into account when accessing cache.

Regarding the sequential access, and as a first change, I think the cache 
access latency needs to be splitted in tag lookup and RAM latency.

Cordialement / Best Regards

SENNI Sophiane
Ph.D.
CNRS / LIRMM (www.lirmm.fr<http://www.lirmm.fr>)

Le 03/06/2016 à 09:36, Andreas Hansson a écrit :
Hi Sophiane,

I think the bottom-line is that the classic cache needs a bit of a timing 
revamp. It is doing an ok job at a very specific timing behaviour, but it 
doesn’t quite respond as you want to the various parameters.

It would be great if you could re-do the timing annotation, and also expose the 
more detailed C++ parameters in the python wrapper. For the various flows 
through the cache we’d then have to make sure that the right delay components 
are added  or maxed  together (tag lookup, RAM access, pipeline latency). Do 
you think you could have a look and post a patch?

Thanks,

Andreas

From: senni sophiane <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, 2 June 2016 at 14:37
To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
Andreas Hansson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: Parallel and Sequential access for cache


Hi,

Maybe my question was not clear. A simpler question, does gem5 consider the 
same cache access latency (tag access + data block access) for both parallel 
and sequential modes ?

If not, where this difference is taken into account. Does someone have a part 
of the answer ?

Thanks

Cordialement / Best Regards

SENNI Sophiane
Ph.D.
CNRS / LIRMM (www.lirmm.fr<http://www.lirmm.fr>)


Le 31/05/2016 à 15:01, senni sophiane a écrit :

Hi Andreas,

I have a question regarding the cache access mode for cache. I saw the cache 
can be accessed either in parallel (tag and data arrays accessed in parallel) 
or sequentially (tags accessed in parallel, only one data array (or block) is 
accessed on a hit).

By reading the "src/mem/cache/tags/base_set_assoc.hh" file, I noticed that the 
number of data blocks accessed is different depending on the cache access mode. 
However, I did not see where the difference in terms of latency is taken into 
account. It seems that for both modes, the cache access latency coresponds to 
the "hit_latency" parameter, isn't it ?

If so, I am not sure what does the "hit_latency" parameter represent ? Does the 
"hit_latency" correspond to the tag lookup latency ? Or does it represent the 
complete access cache (tag lookup latency + latency to read out the data block) 
?

As far as I know, sequential access is slower than parallel access.


Thanks for your help.

--
Cordialement / Best Regards

SENNI Sophiane

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are 
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any 
other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any 
medium. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
gem5-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users

Reply via email to