----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3152/#review7362 -----------------------------------------------------------
I am not really aware of the protocol used by the classic side. But typically ordering only makes protocols more correct, though less performing. So, the patch is fine with me. - Nilay Vaish On Oct. 13, 2015, 3:36 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3152/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 13, 2015, 3:36 p.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11171:4bbaf47ddcc8 > --------------------------- > mem: Enforce packet order on the cache response path > > This patch enforces insertion order transmission of packets on the > response path in the cache. Note that the logic to enforce order is > already present in the packet queue, this patch simply turns it on for > queues in the response path. > > Without this patch, there are corner cases where a request-response is > faster than a response-response forwarded through the cache. This > violation of queuing order causes problems in the snoop filter leaving > it with inaccurate information. This causes assert failures in the > snoop filter later on. > > A follow on patch relaxes the order enforcement in the packet queue to > limit the performance impact. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/mem/cache/cache.cc 44b5c183c3cd > src/mem/qport.hh 44b5c183c3cd > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3152/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andreas Hansson > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
