> On Jan. 12, 2016, 3:19 p.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > src/dev/net/etherswitch.cc, line 531 > > <http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3230/diff/4/?file=53086#file53086line531> > > > > It really irks me that we schedule this every clock period, even if > > there is nothing to do. > > > > Even if we don't make the model event based, could we at least make > > sure that it only ticks if there is something to do? > > Mohammad Alian wrote: > Please refer to my prevoius comment. We do not tick when there is no > packet in the rx or tx queues.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. A "tick-gated" model :-). I'd still prefer something event-based for the interconnect components, but perhaps we can leave that for a future patch. - Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3230/#review7868 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 11, 2016, 5:58 a.m., Mohammad Alian wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3230/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 11, 2016, 5:58 a.m.) > > > Review request for Default. > > > Repository: gem5 > > > Description > ------- > > Changeset 11292:ed7527fcc338 > --------------------------- > dist,dev: add an ethernet switch model > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/dev/net/Ethernet.py 9d2364203316 > src/dev/net/SConscript 9d2364203316 > src/dev/net/etherswitch.hh PRE-CREATION > src/dev/net/etherswitch.cc PRE-CREATION > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/3230/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > several testing done with different benchmarks and different switch sizes > > > Thanks, > > Mohammad Alian > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev