Hey Gabe, I'll need to think about this a bit more myself, but do you think these changes will increase the places we can use ports? Like Andreas was saying, it would be nice to use it for things like interrupt routing, connecting TLBs, and connecting all of the wavefronts in the GPU to the coalescer, etc. These are a few places that I can think of trying to use ports where it wasn't a great semantic before.
Cheers, Jason On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:12 AM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > Great, I'm glad you're in favor of this. I have a new, hopefully more final > batch of patches incoming soon which also include application of the new > mechanism to TLM sockets. > > Gabe > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:47 AM Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandb...@arm.com > > > wrote: > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
