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>

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%).