Hi Everyone, I remember talking to Andreas H about this many years ago. If I remember correctly, the main reason the patch wasn't committed at the time was performance related. IIRC, the patch series had a ~10%-20% performance hit. I suspect it the patch Jason pointed to isn't the main reason for any performance issues though, it's more likely one of the subsequent patches that added TLM-like 4-phase handshakes.
I'm very much in favour of sorting out the ports vs protocol issue once and for all. A generic port interface would be extremely useful for interrupt routing which is currently very ad-hoc. Cheers, Andreas On 07/03/2019 19:42, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > Thanks for digging this up, Jason. I knew this issue had been addressed > multiple times before (I think I even had a patch at one point that was a > smaller change, but held it off in favor of Andreas's version). I don't > know why Andreas's change was never committed either. > > Anyway, it will be good to see this cleaned up, regardless of whether we go > with Andreas's code or Gabe's proposal or some hybrid. I've been out of > the loop long enough that I don't have a specific preference. > > Steve > > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jason Lowe-Power <ja...@lowepower.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Gabe, >> >> I was digging through the old reviewboard and found this patch that also >> re-did this interface: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/1301 >> >> I'm not sure why this was never committed. >> >> I believe Andreas H's goal was to enable TLM-2 interfaces with the gem5, >> IIRC. >> >> Just something to consider. >> >> Cheers, >> Jason >> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 7:00 AM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> Hey folks, specifically folks looking at this doc. I have a series of >>> patches which largely implement what I was going for, although it turned >>> out differently than what I have in my doc. I'll update the doc soon(ish) >>> to describe the current version. Go ahead and review the CLs if you want, >>> although I should probably run another test or two on them and the >>> discussion of the design is still open over on the doc. >>> >>> >>> >> https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/q/topic:%22tlm%22+(status:open%20OR%20status:merged) >>> Gabe >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 12:20 AM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi folks. I've been looking at how to configure TLM sockets through >>> gem5's >>>> port configuration mechanism and how gem5's port configuration >> mechanism >>>> works in general, and I think I've mostly come up with a plan. I've >>> written >>>> everything up in a doc over here: >>>> >>>> >>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17eXkE9YtzvYXEgkHFNR1my_xYKl3mYNNtXM9pIAX-t0/edit?usp=sharing >>>> Please take a look if you have a chance, and please comment on the doc >> if >>>> you have any questions, concerns, etc. >>>> >>>> I created the doc on my personal account but wrote it from my work >>> account >>>> so it *should* be accessible and commentable by anyone with the link. >>>> Please let me know if that's not the case. >>>> >>>> Gabe >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gem5-dev mailing list >>> gem5-dev@gem5.org >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-dev mailing list >> gem5-dev@gem5.org >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
