Hi Malek,
Hmm yeah checking the condition once should be enough, not sure why it
is checked twice.
But in any case, the condition being checked is correct, even for your
topology.
Each "ext_link" is the link connecting a controller (L1, L2, dir etc) to
a router, while "int_link" is for links connecting routers. Hence the
total number of ext links should be equal to the total number of
controllers.
In your topology in, each router will be connected to one L2 and n L1's
via ext links.
Look at how ext_links are added in the current Mesh/MeshDirCorners
topologies.
cheers,
Tushar
On 1/9/2012 1:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:26:19 -0500
From: Malek Musleh<[email protected]>
To: gem5 users mailing list<[email protected]>
Subject: [gem5-users] Issue Defining new Ruby Topology/ Possible Bug
in Topology.cc
Message-ID:
<CAPOxfJUDwWvr=DcBi6aLPoKcE1=a_9mntvyeh5ni9dzqmlj...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi,
I am trying to define a new type of network topology to use with the
Ruby Memory System. Specifically, I am trying to define a Mesh-type
topology that can support multiple (n) L1 caches connected to a shared
L2 cache for a per chip node basis, unlike the currently provided
Mesh/MeshDirCorners Topologies in which each L2 cache has only a
single L1 cache connected to it.
However, in attempting to do so (n == 2), I have encountered the
following error:
Listening for system connection on port 3456
fatal: m_nodes (1) != ext_links vector length (0)
@ cycle Topology
[build/ALPHA_FS_MOESI_CMP_directory/mem/ruby/network/Topology.cc:83,
line 269784]
Memory Usage:<extra arg>%d KBytes
simout (END)
Now, looking at line 83 in Topology.cc, there is the following:
if (m_nodes != params()->ext_links.size()&&
m_nodes != params()->ext_links.size()) {
fatal("m_nodes (%d) != ext_links vector length (%d)\n",
m_nodes != params()->ext_links.size());
}
1) I am not sure if this condition is valid for the type of topology I
am trying to create
2) I am not sure why the condition is checked twice?
As in, if(cond_a&& cond_a) is the same as if(cond_a).
Was the second condition meant to be something else, or was the
condition accidentally typed twice?
Has anyone else created the type of topology I have described?
Thanks in advance.
Malek
_______________________________________________
gem5-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
