Searched hist:60 (Results 101 - 125 of 129) sorted by relevance
/gem5/src/cpu/minor/ | ||
H A D | exec_context.hh | 10259:ebb376f73dd2 Wed Jul 23 17:09:00 EDT 2014 Andrew Bardsley <Andrew.Bardsley@arm.com> cpu: `Minor' in-order CPU model This patch contains a new CPU model named `Minor'. Minor models a four stage in-order execution pipeline (fetch lines, decompose into macroops, decompose macroops into microops, execute). The model was developed to support the ARM ISA but should be fixable to support all the remaining gem5 ISAs. It currently also works for Alpha, and regressions are included for ARM and Alpha (including Linux boot). Documentation for the model can be found in src/doc/inside-minor.doxygen and its internal operations can be visualised using the Minorview tool utils/minorview.py. Minor was designed to be fairly simple and not to engage in a lot of instruction annotation. As such, it currently has very few gathered stats and may lack other gem5 features. Minor is faster than the o3 model. Sample results: Benchmark | Stat host_seconds (s) ---------------+--------v--------v-------- (on ARM, opt) | simple | o3 | minor | timing | timing | timing ---------------+--------+--------+-------- 10.linux-boot | 169 | 1883 | 1075 10.mcf | 117 | 967 | 491 20.parser | 668 | 6315 | 3146 30.eon | 542 | 3413 | 2414 40.perlbmk | 2339 | 20905 | 11532 50.vortex | 122 | 1094 | 588 60.bzip2 | 2045 | 18061 | 9662 70.twolf | 207 | 2736 | 1036 |
/gem5/src/cpu/o3/ | ||
H A D | iew_impl.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). 3795:60ecc96c3cee Sat Dec 16 07:32:00 EST 2006 Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> Made branch delay slots get squashed, and passed back an NPC and NNPC to start fetching from. |
H A D | fetch.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). 3795:60ecc96c3cee Sat Dec 16 07:32:00 EST 2006 Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> Made branch delay slots get squashed, and passed back an NPC and NNPC to start fetching from. |
H A D | iew.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). |
H A D | commit_impl.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). 3795:60ecc96c3cee Sat Dec 16 07:32:00 EST 2006 Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> Made branch delay slots get squashed, and passed back an NPC and NNPC to start fetching from. |
H A D | commit.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). |
H A D | cpu.cc | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). 3795:60ecc96c3cee Sat Dec 16 07:32:00 EST 2006 Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> Made branch delay slots get squashed, and passed back an NPC and NNPC to start fetching from. |
H A D | fetch_impl.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). 3795:60ecc96c3cee Sat Dec 16 07:32:00 EST 2006 Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> Made branch delay slots get squashed, and passed back an NPC and NNPC to start fetching from. |
H A D | lsq_unit_impl.hh | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). |
/gem5/src/dev/arm/ | ||
H A D | RealView.py | 10187:7fef26827810 Fri May 09 18:58:00 EDT 2014 Chris Emmons <Chris.Emmons@arm.com> dev: Set HDLCD default pixel clock for 1080p @ 60Hz This patch changes the default pixel clock to effectively generate 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second. It is dependent upon the kernel device tree file using the specified resolution / display string in the comments. 10187:7fef26827810 Fri May 09 18:58:00 EDT 2014 Chris Emmons <Chris.Emmons@arm.com> dev: Set HDLCD default pixel clock for 1080p @ 60Hz This patch changes the default pixel clock to effectively generate 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second. It is dependent upon the kernel device tree file using the specified resolution / display string in the comments. |
/gem5/src/mem/cache/tags/ | ||
H A D | fa_lru.hh | 2991:60cd98c72fd9 Tue Aug 15 16:21:00 EDT 2006 Ron Dreslinski <rdreslin@umich.edu> Pulled out changes to fix EIO programs with caches. Also fixes any translatingPort read/write Blob function problems with caches. -Basically removed the ASID from places it is no longer needed due to PageTable src/mem/cache/cache.hh: src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/blocking_buffer.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/blocking_buffer.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/miss_queue.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/miss_queue.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr_queue.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr_queue.hh: src/mem/cache/prefetch/base_prefetcher.cc: src/mem/cache/prefetch/base_prefetcher.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/iic.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/iic.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/lru.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lifo.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lifo.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lru.hh: Remove asid where it wasn't neccesary anymore due to Page Table |
H A D | fa_lru.cc | 2991:60cd98c72fd9 Tue Aug 15 16:21:00 EDT 2006 Ron Dreslinski <rdreslin@umich.edu> Pulled out changes to fix EIO programs with caches. Also fixes any translatingPort read/write Blob function problems with caches. -Basically removed the ASID from places it is no longer needed due to PageTable src/mem/cache/cache.hh: src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/blocking_buffer.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/blocking_buffer.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/miss_queue.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/miss_queue.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr_queue.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr_queue.hh: src/mem/cache/prefetch/base_prefetcher.cc: src/mem/cache/prefetch/base_prefetcher.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/iic.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/iic.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/lru.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lifo.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lifo.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lru.hh: Remove asid where it wasn't neccesary anymore due to Page Table |
/gem5/src/mem/ | ||
H A D | dram_ctrl.hh | 11675:60d18201148d Thu Oct 13 14:22:00 EDT 2016 Wendy Elsasser <wendy.elsasser@arm.com> mem: Sort memory commands and update DRAMPower Add local variable to stores commands to be issued. These commands are in order within a single bank but will be out of order across banks & ranks. A new procedure, flushCmdList, sorts commands across banks / ranks, and flushes the sorted list, up to curTick() to DRAMPower. This is currently called in refresh, once all previous commands are guaranteed to have completed. Could be called in other events like the powerEvent as well. By only flushing commands up to curTick(), will not get out of sync when flushed at a periodic stats dump (done in subsequent patch). Change-Id: I4ac65a52407f64270db1e16a1fb04cfe7f638851 Reviewed-by: Radhika Jagtap <radhika.jagtap@arm.com> |
H A D | dram_ctrl.cc | 11675:60d18201148d Thu Oct 13 14:22:00 EDT 2016 Wendy Elsasser <wendy.elsasser@arm.com> mem: Sort memory commands and update DRAMPower Add local variable to stores commands to be issued. These commands are in order within a single bank but will be out of order across banks & ranks. A new procedure, flushCmdList, sorts commands across banks / ranks, and flushes the sorted list, up to curTick() to DRAMPower. This is currently called in refresh, once all previous commands are guaranteed to have completed. Could be called in other events like the powerEvent as well. By only flushing commands up to curTick(), will not get out of sync when flushed at a periodic stats dump (done in subsequent patch). Change-Id: I4ac65a52407f64270db1e16a1fb04cfe7f638851 Reviewed-by: Radhika Jagtap <radhika.jagtap@arm.com> |
H A D | physical.cc | 3224:60e426da682b Mon Oct 09 00:09:00 EDT 2006 Kevin Lim <ktlim@umich.edu> Update memory assertion to check for whole range. src/mem/physical.cc: Update assertion to check for full range. |
/gem5/src/sim/ | ||
H A D | SConscript | 10259:ebb376f73dd2 Wed Jul 23 17:09:00 EDT 2014 Andrew Bardsley <Andrew.Bardsley@arm.com> cpu: `Minor' in-order CPU model This patch contains a new CPU model named `Minor'. Minor models a four stage in-order execution pipeline (fetch lines, decompose into macroops, decompose macroops into microops, execute). The model was developed to support the ARM ISA but should be fixable to support all the remaining gem5 ISAs. It currently also works for Alpha, and regressions are included for ARM and Alpha (including Linux boot). Documentation for the model can be found in src/doc/inside-minor.doxygen and its internal operations can be visualised using the Minorview tool utils/minorview.py. Minor was designed to be fairly simple and not to engage in a lot of instruction annotation. As such, it currently has very few gathered stats and may lack other gem5 features. Minor is faster than the o3 model. Sample results: Benchmark | Stat host_seconds (s) ---------------+--------v--------v-------- (on ARM, opt) | simple | o3 | minor | timing | timing | timing ---------------+--------+--------+-------- 10.linux-boot | 169 | 1883 | 1075 10.mcf | 117 | 967 | 491 20.parser | 668 | 6315 | 3146 30.eon | 542 | 3413 | 2414 40.perlbmk | 2339 | 20905 | 11532 50.vortex | 122 | 1094 | 588 60.bzip2 | 2045 | 18061 | 9662 70.twolf | 207 | 2736 | 1036 |
/gem5/src/mem/ruby/system/ | ||
H A D | RubyPort.hh | 10875:60eb3fef9c2d Thu Jun 25 12:58:00 EDT 2015 Jason Power <power.jg@gmail.com> Ruby: Remove assert in RubyPort retry list logic Remove the assert when adding a port to the RubyPort retry list. Instead of asserting, just ignore the added port, since it's already on the list. Without this patch, Ruby+detailed fails for even the simplest tests |
H A D | Sequencer.cc | 6846:60e0df8086f0 Thu Sep 17 18:39:00 EDT 2009 Polina Dudnik <pdudnik@cs.wisc.edu> Functionality migrated to sequencer. |
/gem5/src/python/m5/ | ||
H A D | simulate.py | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). |
H A D | SimObject.py | 10023:91faf6649de0 Fri Jan 24 16:29:00 EST 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%). |
/gem5/src/cpu/ | ||
H A D | static_inst.hh | 10259:ebb376f73dd2 Wed Jul 23 17:09:00 EDT 2014 Andrew Bardsley <Andrew.Bardsley@arm.com> cpu: `Minor' in-order CPU model This patch contains a new CPU model named `Minor'. Minor models a four stage in-order execution pipeline (fetch lines, decompose into macroops, decompose macroops into microops, execute). The model was developed to support the ARM ISA but should be fixable to support all the remaining gem5 ISAs. It currently also works for Alpha, and regressions are included for ARM and Alpha (including Linux boot). Documentation for the model can be found in src/doc/inside-minor.doxygen and its internal operations can be visualised using the Minorview tool utils/minorview.py. Minor was designed to be fairly simple and not to engage in a lot of instruction annotation. As such, it currently has very few gathered stats and may lack other gem5 features. Minor is faster than the o3 model. Sample results: Benchmark | Stat host_seconds (s) ---------------+--------v--------v-------- (on ARM, opt) | simple | o3 | minor | timing | timing | timing ---------------+--------+--------+-------- 10.linux-boot | 169 | 1883 | 1075 10.mcf | 117 | 967 | 491 20.parser | 668 | 6315 | 3146 30.eon | 542 | 3413 | 2414 40.perlbmk | 2339 | 20905 | 11532 50.vortex | 122 | 1094 | 588 60.bzip2 | 2045 | 18061 | 9662 70.twolf | 207 | 2736 | 1036 |
H A D | SConscript | 10259:ebb376f73dd2 Wed Jul 23 17:09:00 EDT 2014 Andrew Bardsley <Andrew.Bardsley@arm.com> cpu: `Minor' in-order CPU model This patch contains a new CPU model named `Minor'. Minor models a four stage in-order execution pipeline (fetch lines, decompose into macroops, decompose macroops into microops, execute). The model was developed to support the ARM ISA but should be fixable to support all the remaining gem5 ISAs. It currently also works for Alpha, and regressions are included for ARM and Alpha (including Linux boot). Documentation for the model can be found in src/doc/inside-minor.doxygen and its internal operations can be visualised using the Minorview tool utils/minorview.py. Minor was designed to be fairly simple and not to engage in a lot of instruction annotation. As such, it currently has very few gathered stats and may lack other gem5 features. Minor is faster than the o3 model. Sample results: Benchmark | Stat host_seconds (s) ---------------+--------v--------v-------- (on ARM, opt) | simple | o3 | minor | timing | timing | timing ---------------+--------+--------+-------- 10.linux-boot | 169 | 1883 | 1075 10.mcf | 117 | 967 | 491 20.parser | 668 | 6315 | 3146 30.eon | 542 | 3413 | 2414 40.perlbmk | 2339 | 20905 | 11532 50.vortex | 122 | 1094 | 588 60.bzip2 | 2045 | 18061 | 9662 70.twolf | 207 | 2736 | 1036 |
/gem5/src/arch/sparc/isa/ | ||
H A D | decoder.isa | 3057:60d4eb3843f7 Tue Aug 29 02:40:00 EDT 2006 Gabe Black <gblack@eecs.umich.edu> Cleaned up floating point by removing unnecessary conversions and by implementing faligndata more correctly. |
/gem5/src/mem/cache/ | ||
H A D | cache.hh | 2991:60cd98c72fd9 Tue Aug 15 16:21:00 EDT 2006 Ron Dreslinski <rdreslin@umich.edu> Pulled out changes to fix EIO programs with caches. Also fixes any translatingPort read/write Blob function problems with caches. -Basically removed the ASID from places it is no longer needed due to PageTable src/mem/cache/cache.hh: src/mem/cache/cache_impl.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/blocking_buffer.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/blocking_buffer.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/miss_queue.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/miss_queue.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr.hh: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr_queue.cc: src/mem/cache/miss/mshr_queue.hh: src/mem/cache/prefetch/base_prefetcher.cc: src/mem/cache/prefetch/base_prefetcher.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/fa_lru.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/iic.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/iic.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/lru.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lifo.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lifo.hh: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lru.cc: src/mem/cache/tags/split_lru.hh: Remove asid where it wasn't neccesary anymore due to Page Table |
H A D | base.hh | 13624:3d8220c2d41d Thu Dec 13 05:38:00 EST 2018 Javier Bueno <javier.bueno@metempsy.com> mem-cache: Updated version of the Signature Path Prefetcher This implementation is based in the description available in: Jinchun Kim, Seth H. Pugsley, Paul V. Gratz, A. L. Narasimha Reddy, Chris Wilkerson, and Zeshan Chishti. 2016. Path confidence based lookahead prefetching. In The 49th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO-49). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Article 60, 12 pages. Change-Id: I4b8b54efef48ced7044bd535de9a69bca68d47d9 Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/c/14819 Reviewed-by: Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@arm.com> Maintainer: Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@arm.com> |
Completed in 387 milliseconds