yeah i got that when i thought it carefully, anyways thanks for your help On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, biswabandan panda wrote: > > no i think its not possible also. If the block is not there in the cache >> how >> you will find the address? >> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, biswabandan panda wrote: >>> >>> initially by using findBlock it gets the block and then invalidated all >>> >>>> the >>>> blocks, my point is when a cpu requests, it will check the tag and valid >>>> bits for hit else its a miss. yeah it's not possible in set associative >>>> caches but what about direct mapped? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I think, I don't understand what you are trying to do. Anyways, in a >>> direct >>> mapped cache, since there is only one block per set, you can always add a >>> function that returns you that one block. >>> >>> > The address being accessed can give you the set. That set has only one > block (since it is direct mapped cache), so we do not need the actual > address of the block stored in the cache. > > > -- > Nilay > _______________________________________________ > m5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users > -- *thanks®ards * *BISWABANDAN PANDA* *M.S.(RESEARCH SCHOLAR)* *RISE LAB* *IIT MADRAS* http://www.cse.iitm.ac.in/~biswa/ <http://www.cse.iitm.ac.in/%7Ebiswa/>
_______________________________________________ m5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
