Brad, I will make all the changes, test the protocols and then post the
patches again. I will also update the other protocols. I don't think the
patch for MOESI_CMP_directory would need an update, but SLICC patch would
surely need to be updated. I get this done soon.
Thanks
Nilay
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Beckmann, Brad wrote:
Hi Nilay,
Yes, please add the OOD token. I believe that will come in handy when
developing new protocols. Don???t worry about separating out that
RequestorMachine change. It seems like just a few extra lines. Also I
believe the MOESI_CMP_Directory protocol did work correctly before your
change, right? If so, the RequestorMachine lines are related to the
rest of the patch.
Brad
From: Nilay Vaish [mailto:ni...@cs.wisc.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 8:57 AM
To: Nilay Vaish; Default; Beckmann, Brad
Subject: Re: Review Request: Updating MOESI CMP Directory protocol as per the
new interface
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/359/
On January 13th, 2011, 8:48 a.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_directory-L1cache.sm<http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/359/diff/8/?file=9537#file9537line159>
(Diff revision 8)
155
if (L1DcacheMemory.isTagPresent(addr)) {
157
return L1Icache_entry;
So the assumption here is the L1IcacheMemory.lookup() call either returns the
L1I cache entry or NULL/OOD, correct? Does SLICC also support explicitly
passing back OOD?
Currently, SLICC does not have support for Out Of Domain (OOD) token. But I can
add that as I had done earlier. I am not sure if we actually need it.
On January 13th, 2011, 8:48 a.m., Brad Beckmann wrote:
src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_directory-L1cache.sm<http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/359/diff/8/?file=9537#file9537line465>
(Diff revision 8)
430
out_msg.RequestorMachine := MachineType:L1Cache;
This seems like an unrelated change, correct. However it is pretty minor, so
don't worry about it.
IIRC, this is necessary or else a certain panic state is reached. I think I
should separately make this change.
- Nilay
On January 12th, 2011, 10:44 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote:
Review request for Default.
By Nilay Vaish.
Updated 2011-01-12 22:44:50
Description
This is a request for reviewing the proposed changes to the MOESI CMP directory
cache coherence protocol to make it conform with the new cache memory interface
and changes to SLICC.
Testing
These changes have been tested using the Ruby random tester. The tester was
used with -l = 1048576 and -n = 2.
Diffs
* src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_directory-L1cache.sm (c6bc8fe81e79)
* src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_directory-L2cache.sm (c6bc8fe81e79)
* src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_directory-dir.sm (c6bc8fe81e79)
* src/mem/protocol/MOESI_CMP_directory-dma.sm (c6bc8fe81e79)
View Diff<http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/359/diff/>
_______________________________________________
m5-dev mailing list
m5-dev@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev