[gem5-dev] changeset in gem5: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency a...

changeset f15f02d8c79e in /z/repo/gem5 details: http://repo.gem5.org/gem5?cmd=changeset;node=f15f02d8c79e description: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency If the cache access mode is parallel, i.e. "sequential_access" parameter is set to "False",

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

sit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8995 --- On oct. 27, 2016, 11:25 matin, Sophiane SENNI wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To re

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

rc/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 4aac82f10951 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

rc/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 4aac82f10951 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8960 --- On oct. 24, 2016, 2:56 après-midi, Sophiane SENNI wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > htt

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

iff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

ms to me this code is not right, as it checks if the data is > > technically written now, but we only need the data at time T. > > > > Should we not rather add the dataLatency to the blk->whenReady and then > > do the plus or max opteration? > >

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

> On juil. 25, 2016, 1:18 après-midi, Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > > Ship It! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > How can I commit the patch ? I am not sure I have the commit access ? > > Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > You can't commit it youself, one of the maintainers will h

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

> On juil. 25, 2016, 1:18 après-midi, Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > > Ship It! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > How can I commit the patch ? I am not sure I have the commit access ? > > Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > You can't commit it youself, one of the maintainers will h

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

812689280e7a8fa842 src/mem/cache/tags/base_set_assoc.hh 4aac82f109517217e6bfb3812689280e7a8fa842 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 4aac82f109517217e6bfb3812689280e7a8fa842 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

we care about blk->whenReady in base_set_assoc.hh, I assume we have also to care about it here. - Sophiane ------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8552 --

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

> On juil. 25, 2016, 1:18 après-midi, Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > > Ship It! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > How can I commit the patch ? I am not sure I have the commit access ? > > Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > You can't commit it youself, one of the maintainers will h

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

> On juil. 25, 2016, 1:18 après-midi, Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > > Ship It! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > How can I commit the patch ? I am not sure I have the commit access ? > > Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > You can't commit it youself, one of the maintainers will h

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

> On juil. 25, 2016, 1:18 après-midi, Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > > Ship It! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > How can I commit the patch ? I am not sure I have the commit access ? > > Nikos Nikoleris wrote: > You can't commit it youself, one of the maintainers will h

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

sit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8525 --- On juil. 25, 2016, 1:16 après-midi, Sophiane SENNI wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > ht

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

p://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8519 --- On juil. 25, 2016, 1:16 après-midi, Sophiane SENNI wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/ >

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

a985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/tags/base_set_assoc.hh 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@ge

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@ge

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

r? The > > flag sequentialAccess and the condition lookupLatency >= dataLantency > > shouldn't change during the simulation. > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > I think this code should be left here. Because the total access latency > now depends on both tag_latency and

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

r? The > > flag sequentialAccess and the condition lookupLatency >= dataLantency > > shouldn't change during the simulation. > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > I think this code should be left here. Because the total access latency > now depends on both tag_latency and

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

r? The > > flag sequentialAccess and the condition lookupLatency >= dataLantency > > shouldn't change during the simulation. > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > I think this code should be left here. Because the total access latency > now depends on both tag_latency and

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/tags/Tags.py 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/base.cc 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Deb

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: mem: Split the hit_latency into tag_latency and data_latency

80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/tags/base.hh 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/tags/base.cc 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and data access latency

lly generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8441 --- On juin 20, 2016, 3:07 après-midi, Sophiane SENNI wrote: > > --- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and data access latency

;ram_latency" is also not very clear. > > Maybe something like "tag_latency" and "line_latency" could be better ? I > > think the two parts of a cache are well identified in this example. > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > Hi Pierre-Yves, > > I

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and data access latency

80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 80e79ae636ca6b021cbf7aa985b5fd56cb5b2708 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

uld be a solution. Any feedback from other gem5 users would be useful. Sophiane - Sophiane --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8419 ----

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

t_assoc.hh 80e79ae636ca src/mem/cache/tags/base.hh 80e79ae636ca configs/common/Caches.py 80e79ae636ca src/mem/cache/Cache.py 80e79ae636ca src/mem/cache/base.hh 80e79ae636ca src/mem/cache/base.cc 80e79ae636ca Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

the "-o" option on the extension. > > > > Cheers! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > Hi Jason, > > If I use the hg postreview extension (with the following command hg > postreview -o -u -e 3502), all the patch does not apply cleanly. > > Jason

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

the "-o" option on the extension. > > > > Cheers! > > Sophiane SENNI wrote: > Hi Jason, > > If I use the hg postreview extension (with the following command hg > postreview -o -u -e 3502), all the patch does not apply cleanly. > > Jason

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

em/cache/tags/Tags.py UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/base.hh UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/base.cc UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/BaseCache.py UNKNOWN configs/common/Caches.py UNKNOWN Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Deb

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

s is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/#review8413 ------- On juin 16, 2016, 3:15 après-midi, Sophiane SENNI wrote: > > --- > Th

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

src/mem/cache/tags/base_set_assoc.hh 629fe6e6c781ec542bcd1cfda0217dfc51c4826b src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh 629fe6e6c781ec542bcd1cfda0217dfc51c4826b src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 629fe6e6c781ec542bcd1cfda0217dfc51c4826b Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Deb

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

src/mem/cache/tags/base.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/base.cc 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/base_set_assoc.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 629fe6e6c781 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

hh UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/tags/base.cc UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/tags/base_set_assoc.hh UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh UNKNOWN src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc UNKNOWN Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Deb

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

py 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/base.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/base.cc 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/Tags.py 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/base.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/base.cc 629fe6e6c781 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: cache: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/Tags.py 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/base.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/base.cc 629fe6e6c781 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI

[gem5-dev] Review Request 3502: Split the hit latency into tag lookup latency and RAM access latency

oc.hh 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc 629fe6e6c781 src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh 629fe6e6c781 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3502/diff/ Testing --- Tested using --Debug-flags=Cache Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list ge

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2109: Different SimpleDRAM latency for read and write access

--- On Dec. 6, 2013, 11:09 a.m., Sophiane SENNI wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2109

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2072: Different cache latency for read and write access

to check read hit latency and write hit latency for Dcache and Icache. I checked the time between a request sent by the cpu and the response sent by the cache memory. Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2109: Different SimpleDRAM latency for read and write access

(updated) - src/mem/SimpleDRAM.py 5e8970397ab7 src/mem/simple_dram.hh 5e8970397ab7 src/mem/simple_dram.cc 5e8970397ab7 Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2109/diff/ Testing --- Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2072: Different cache latency for read and write access

--- On Nov. 4, 2013, 9:44 a.m., Sophiane SENNI wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2072

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2072: Different cache latency for read and write access

--- On Nov. 4, 2013, 9:44 a.m., Sophiane SENNI wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2072/ --- (Updated

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2072: Different cache latency for read and write access

--- I used --debug-flags command to check read hit latency and write hit latency for Dcache and Icache. I checked the time between a request sent by the cpu and the response sent by the cache memory. Thanks, Sophiane SENNI ___ gem5-dev mailing list