| 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> |
| 11247:76f75db08e09 |
07-Dec-2015 |
Radhika Jagtap <radhika.jagtap@ARM.com> |
proto, probe: Add elastic trace probe to o3 cpu
The elastic trace is a type of probe listener and listens to probe points
in multiple stages of the O3CPU. The notify method is called on a probe
point typically when an instruction successfully progresses through that
stage.
As different listener methods mapped to the different probe points execute,
relevant information about the instruction, e.g. timestamps and register
accesses, are captured and stored in temporary InstExecInfo class objects.
When the instruction progresses through the commit stage, the timing and the
dependency information about the instruction is finalised and encapsulated in
a struct called TraceInfo. TraceInfo objects are collected in a list instead
of writing them out to the trace file one a time. This is required as the
trace is processed in chunks to evaluate order dependencies and computational
delay in case an instruction does not have any register dependencies. By this
we achieve a simpler algorithm during replay because every record in the
trace can be hooked onto a record in its past. The instruction dependency
trace is written out as a protobuf format file. A second trace containing
fetch requests at absolute timestamps is written to a separate protobuf
format file.
If the instruction is not executed then it is not added to the trace.
The code checks if the instruction had a fault, if it predicated
false and thus previous register values were restored or if it was a
load/store that did not have a request (e.g. when the size of the
request is zero). In all these cases the instruction is set as
executed by the Execute stage and is picked up by the commit probe
listener. But a request is not issued and registers are not written.
So practically, skipping these should not hurt the dependency modelling.
If squashing results in squashing younger instructions, it may happen that
the squash probe discards the inst and removes it from the temporary
store but execute stage deals with the instruction in the next cycle which
results in the execute probe seeing this inst as 'new' inst. A sequence
number of the last processed trace record is used to trap these cases and
not add to the temporary store.
The elastic instruction trace and fetch request trace can be read in and
played back by the TraceCPU. |
| 10023:91faf6649de0 |
24-Jan-2014 |
Matt Horsnell <matt.horsnell@ARM.com> |
base: add support for probe points and common probes
The probe patch is motivated by the desire to move analytical and trace code
away from functional code. This is achieved by the probe interface which is
essentially a glorified observer model.
What this means to users:
* add a probe point and a "notify" call at the source of an "event"
* add an isolated module, that is being used to carry out *your* analysis (e.g. generate a trace)
* register that module as a probe listener
Note: an example is given for reference in src/cpu/o3/simple_trace.[hh|cc] and src/cpu/SimpleTrace.py
What is happening under the hood:
* every SimObject maintains has a ProbeManager.
* during initialization (src/python/m5/simulate.py) first regProbePoints and
the regProbeListeners is called on each SimObject. this hooks up the probe
point notify calls with the listeners.
FAQs:
Why did you develop probe points:
* to remove trace, stats gathering, analytical code out of the functional code.
* the belief that probes could be generically useful.
What is a probe point:
* a probe point is used to notify upon a given event (e.g. cpu commits an instruction)
What is a probe listener:
* a class that handles whatever the user wishes to do when they are notified
about an event.
What can be passed on notify:
* probe points are templates, and so the user can generate probes that pass any
type of argument (by const reference) to a listener.
What relationships can be generated (1:1, 1:N, N:M etc):
* there isn't a restriction. You can hook probe points and listeners up in a
1:1, 1:N, N:M relationship. They become useful when a number of modules
listen to the same probe points. The idea being that you can add a small
number of probes into the source code and develop a larger number of useful
analysis modules that use information passed by the probes.
Can you give examples:
* adding a probe point to the cpu's commit method allows you to build a trace
module (outputting assembler), you could re-use this to gather instruction
distribution (arithmetic, load/store, conditional, control flow) stats.
Why is the probe interface currently restricted to passing a const reference:
* the desire, initially at least, is to allow an interface to observe
functionality, but not to change functionality.
* of course this can be subverted by const-casting.
What is the performance impact of adding probes:
* when nothing is actively listening to the probes they should have a
relatively minor impact. Profiling has suggested even with a large number of
probes (60) the impact of them (when not active) is very minimal (<1%). |