Hi all, In our current work on memory controller models I have had another look at the gem5 vs Ruby view of memories, and one thing I stumbled upon is the following:
In e.g. simple-timing-ruby.py we create something called physmem (just a simple memory) with default parameters, however it is not connected to anything and just a child of the system. When we call Ruby.create_system, this uses system.memories.unproxy(system) to determine the total physical memory size, but that's all. In other words, we create a MemObject, leave it dangling, and then just have it hanging there to represent a scalar. This causes the controller to fatal saying it is unconnected (and overall does not strike me as a very good design). I see two "solutions": 1. Do not instantiate a memory controller and leave it dangling. Instead pass a size parameter to Ruby.create_system and check that system.memories is [] 2. Do it the proper way and connect the memory controllers through Ruby i.e. Ruby replaces the interconnect, but leaves the actual memory controller on the outside (there was a PPT being circulated roughly a year ago with a proposal from Ali and myself to do this). Can I go ahead and implement 1 as a quick fix? Do you Ruby Ninjas out there see any problems with this? Thanks, Andreas -- 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-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
