> 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 :). > > Brad Beckmann wrote: > 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. > > 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. > > Nilay Vaish wrote: > 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 Vaish wrote: > One more thing that you may not be aware of. You can connect two > controllers > directly using message buffers without going through the network. So, you > probably do not require WireBuffer anyway.
Is AMD further interested in arguing about this data structure? I am completely confident whatever Brad claimed is not what this data structure does. And MessageBuffer with ordered=true would serve the purpose as long as two controllers are directly connnected. Unless anyone speaks on this issue soon enough (end of next week or so), I am going assume this debate has concluded and commit this patch. - Nilay ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2896/#review6527 ----------------------------------------------------------- On June 19, 2015, 4:09 a.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2896/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated June 19, 2015, 4:09 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 10881:4962564c4ce6 > --------------------------- > ruby: remove wire buffer > > The structure is not being used anywhere. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/protocol/RubySlicc_Types.sm ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/SConscript ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/SConscript ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/WireBuffer.hh ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/WireBuffer.cc ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/ruby/structures/WireBuffer.py ebb3d0737aa7 > src/mem/slicc/symbols/StateMachine.py ebb3d0737aa7 > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2896/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Nilay Vaish > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
