Hi Andreas,

This seems like a reasonable thing to add.  However, I'm leery of making
such a significant backwards-incompatible change to the existing bus.  Is
it possible to use this as a test case for implementing multiple protocols,
and provide two different bus variants (or a single bus model with an
option) such that we provide both behaviors going forward?

I realize that's more complicated than having a single model, but in the
long run we should have the flexibility to have multiple models anyway, so
I'm just thinking this might be a good point to start on that.

Steve


On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Andreas Hansson <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As I understand it, memInhibit is currently used for two purposes:
>
>
> 1)      For the caches to communicate whether a line is present in another
> cache or not
>
> 2)      To squash the request (and response) destined for a memory
>
> There are two problems with (2) and I am keen to try and remove this in a
> subsequent patch. First, for a bus we would like to model the effects of
> speculative fetches, and the implications of snoop latencies compared to
> the memory latency. To do so the bus would have to be responsible for the
> "aggregation" of the response. Second, for the DRAM modelling, faking the
> removal of the inhibited requests changes the behaviour, as the memory is
> effectively a state machine (or rather a whole bunch of them). Thus,
> squashing the request instead of completing it and later coalescing it in
> the bus makes it difficult to investigate the system performance, and
> implications of speculative fetches.
>
> For the aforementioned reasons I would like to keep (1), but try and
> remove (2), i.e. remove the check in tport, simple_mem etc, and then add
> enough intelligence in the coherent bus to aggregate the response (kill
> whichever comes last, snoop response or memory response).
>
> Any objections, suggestions, ideas?
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to