I love that you guys want to fix this. Can we agree on the immediate fix so it's no longer broken and then improve it? :)
Thanks, Nate > I suppose you could do that kind of walking, though I think it would be > overly complicated. Let's say again you have 4 private L1s, 2 shared L2s, > and a shared L3. If the L3 poked its port appropriately, I guess it could > know that there are two things hanging off of it on the other side. But if > you want to know things on a per CPU basis, then you'd have to keep track of > depth as well so that when you get the the L2s and poke THEIR ports, you > could back calculate at the L3 that there are 4 cores sharing the L3. Seems > messy to me. > > So, I guess my feeling is, if you want to be the one to code that up, that's > cool, but I'm definitely not going to :). > > Lisa > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Korey Sewell <ksew...@umich.edu> wrote: > >> Hey Lisa, >> Is this (below) really something you have to do though? >> > you'd have to do a lot of configuration in >> > the python scripts anyway to indicate who is sharing what with whom, and >> > register that with some common object and make connections to that >> object. >> >> I mean, as far as my understanding goes, to figure out which ports to >> snoop, M5 already goes through this type of exploration process >> (recvStatusChange?). >> >> > different levels, e.g. if you had 4 private L1s, 4 private L2s, and 1 >> shared >> > L3, walking through and "discovering" how many CPUs exist in the system >> will >> > not tell you anything about how they are hooked up together and you'd >> need a >> > way in configuration scripts to disambiguate from, say, 4 private L1s, 2 >> > shared L2s, and 1 shared L3. >> >> After everything as been hooked up through the port interface, I think >> you have enough information. For example, if you have 4 private L1s >> and 2 shared L2s, then each L2 would ask each of the L1 ports that >> it's connected to "how many sharers" and then each L1 would ask it's >> CPU "how many sharers". Eventually, u just sum that information up and >> pass it back. >> >> I understand that might be overkill (over just explicitly setting the >> sharers), but I dont see how that wouldn't work quite yet (although, I >> could just be missing something). >> >> - Korey >> >> > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
