| #
13590:d7e018859709 |
|
13-Feb-2017 |
Rekai Gonzalez-Alberquilla <rekai.gonzalezalberquilla@arm.com> |
cpu-o3: O3 LSQ Generalisation
This patch does a large modification of the LSQ in the O3 model. The
main goal of the patch is to remove the 'an operation can be served with
one or two memory requests' assumption that is present in the LSQ
and the instruction with the req, reqLow, reqHigh triplet, and
generalising it to operations that can be addressed with one request,
and operations that require many requests, embodied in the
SingleDataRequest and the SplitDataRequest.
This modification has been done mimicking the minor model to an extent,
shifting the responsibilities of dealing with VtoP translation and
tracking the status and resources from the DynInst to the LSQ via the
LSQRequest. The LSQRequest models the information concerning the
operation, handles the creation of fragments for translation and request
as well as assembling/splitting the data accordingly.
With this modifications, the implementation of vector ISAs, particularly
on the memory side, become more rich, as the new model permits a
dissociation of the ISA characteristics as vector length, from the
microarchitectural characteristics that govern how contiguous loads are
executing, allowing exploration of different LSQ to DL1 bus widths to
understand the tradeoffs in complexity and performance.
Part of the complexities introduced stem from the fact that gem5 keeps a
large amount of metadata regarding, in particular, memory operations,
thus, when an instruction is squashed while some operation as TLB lookup
or cache access is ongoing, when the relevant structure communicates to
the LSQ that the operation is over, it tries to access some pieces of
data that should have died when the instruction is squashed, leading to
asserts, panics, or memory corruption. To ensure the correct behaviour,
the LSQRequest rely on assesing who is their owner, and self-destroying
if they detect their owner is done with the request, and there will be
no subsequent action. For example, in the case of an instruction
squashed whal the TLB is doing a walk to serve the translation, when the
translation is served by the TLB, the LSQRequest detects that the
instruction was squashed, and as the translation is done, no one else
expect to access its information, and therefore, it self-destructs.
Having destroyed the LSQRequest earlier, would lead to wrong behaviour
as the TLB walk may access some fields of it.
Additional authors:
- Gabor Dozsa <gabor.dozsa@arm.com>
Change-Id: I9578a1a3f6b899c390cdd886856a24db68ff7d0c
Signed-off-by: Giacomo Gabrielli <giacomo.gabrielli@arm.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13516
Reviewed-by: Anthony Gutierrez <anthony.gutierrez@amd.com>
Maintainer: Anthony Gutierrez <anthony.gutierrez@amd.com>
|
| #
13429:a1e199fd8122 |
|
06-Feb-2017 |
Rekai Gonzalez-Alberquilla <rekai.gonzalezalberquilla@arm.com> |
cpu: Fix the usage of const DynInstPtr
Summary: Usage of const DynInstPtr& when possible and introduction of
move operators to RefCountingPtr.
In many places, scoped references to dynamic instructions do a copy of
the DynInstPtr when a reference would do. This is detrimental to
performance. On top of that, in case there is a need for reference
tracking for debugging, the redundant copies make the process much more
painful than it already is.
Also, from the theoretical point of view, a function/method that
defines a convenience name to access an instruction should not be
considered an owner of the data, i.e., doing a copy and not a reference
is not justified.
On a related topic, C++11 introduces move semantics, and those are
useful when, for example, there is a class modelling a HW structure that
contains a list, and has a getHeadOfList function, to prevent doing a
copy to an internal variable -> update pointer, remove from the list ->
update pointer, return value making a copy to the assined variable ->
update pointer, destroy the returned value -> update pointer.
Change-Id: I3bb46c20ef23b6873b469fd22befb251ac44d2f6
Signed-off-by: Giacomo Gabrielli <giacomo.gabrielli@arm.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/13105
Reviewed-by: Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandberg@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
Maintainer: Andreas Sandberg <andreas.sandberg@arm.com>
Maintainer: Jason Lowe-Power <jason@lowepower.com>
|
| #
7810:3a790012d6ed |
|
03-Jan-2011 |
Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> |
RefCount: Fix reference counting pointer == and != with a T* on the left.
These operators were expecting a const T& instead of a const T*, and were not
being picked up and used by gcc in the right places as a result. Apparently no
one used these operators before. A unit test which exposed these problems,
verified the solution, and checks other basic functionality is on the way.
|