On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Brad Beckmann wrote:
On June 19, 2015, 5:07 p.m., Steve Reinhardt wrote:
yYes, we use the wire buffer in our protocols and oppose its removal.
(What's the opposite of the "Ship It" button?) Brad is on vacation
today so I'll comment on his behalf :).
Nilay **please** when commenting on a patch, use Reviewboard rather than
directly replying to an email. It is very hard to keep track of your
comments over email.
And I find it hard to keep track of things using the reviewboard. I
generally look at emails that I have received and not what has been
updated on the reviewboard.
On 6/19 Nilay said "Steve, can you spell out the difference between the WireBuffer
and the MessageBuffer classes?"
The wire buffer is not a virtual channel buffer, rather it mimics an
actual wired communication between to controllers. As Jason points
oout, it allows us to closely tie controllers together and take
advantage of ordering properties not provided by MessageBuffers.
You write what you think the WireBuffer is doing. Have you read the code?
How do you make sense of a data structure that has queue-like semantics
for inserts and heap-like for deletes and recycles? What wire behaves in
this fashion? Or for that matter what wire has buffering associated with
it?
--
Nilay
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
