> On June 14, 2012, 7:21 a.m., Ali Saidi wrote: > > looks fine to me, but it only seems to impact performance slightly. Did you > > see bigger gains than a couple %? > > Nathanael Premillieu wrote: > I have re-run the experiment with the arm_detailed model. There is > nearlly no gain (there is even loses for some runs). Now, I wonder why there > is so much RAs mispredictions. Is it relalted to the ARM ISA? Because, with > the alpha ISA (in an other simulator), I have a lot less RAS mispredictions.
I found a bug tagging a pop operation correctly. I couldn't find it used in some spec2k binaries that I looked at, but apparently some version of compiles do emit them a lot. I'll be pushing it soon. - Ali ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1268/#review2947 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 11, 2012, 7:49 a.m., Nathanael Premillieu wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1268/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 11, 2012, 7:49 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Description > ------- > > I have added a new flag (named pushedRAS) in the PredictorHistory structure. > This flag tracks whether the RAS has been pushed or not during a prediction. > Then, in the squash function it is used to pop the RAS if necessary. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/cpu/o3/bpred_unit.hh d0d9d10b3930 > src/cpu/o3/bpred_unit_impl.hh d0d9d10b3930 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1268/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > It has been tested on several of the Spec2006 benchmarks compiled for ARM. > For most of the cases, there are less RAS mispredictions. > > > Thanks, > > Nathanael Premillieu > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
