Difference between revisions of "Integrating M5 and GEMS"
From gem5
(→Tasks) |
(→Long Term Tasks) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
#::# Support for uncached RMW ops (e.g., bus locking; x86 only). | #::# Support for uncached RMW ops (e.g., bus locking; x86 only). | ||
#:: Number 1 will require some hacking, though it can mostly be done outside the coherence protocol. (There are a few efficiency and potential livelock things you want to do at the coherence level, but I believe they're optional for just getting things to work.) Number 2 should be trivial the way M5 does them, as the swap operation is sent to the cache and only requires exclusive block access (though Dan is correct that if you want to get the timing precise it's a little trickier... but if you really wanted to be realistic you wouldn't be doing the operation at the cache anyway, I don't think). Number 3 is a big pain but it's not needed until we get further along with x86 FS mode (M5 doesn't do it currently either); just wanted to raise that spectre to get people used to the idea. -- Steve | #:: Number 1 will require some hacking, though it can mostly be done outside the coherence protocol. (There are a few efficiency and potential livelock things you want to do at the coherence level, but I believe they're optional for just getting things to work.) Number 2 should be trivial the way M5 does them, as the swap operation is sent to the cache and only requires exclusive block access (though Dan is correct that if you want to get the timing precise it's a little trickier... but if you really wanted to be realistic you wouldn't be doing the operation at the cache anyway, I don't think). Number 3 is a big pain but it's not needed until we get further along with x86 FS mode (M5 doesn't do it currently either); just wanted to raise that spectre to get people used to the idea. -- Steve | ||
| − | # Ruby-side: Timing of uncached accesses | + | # Ruby-side: Timing of uncached accesses( Arka) |
#: Basically, we need add an 'isUncacheable' flag to network messages and modify SLICC to generate cache controllers that ignore messages with the isUncacheable flag set. That should effectively force the messages to traverse their normal miss path. As an optimization (depending on interconnect, etc.), we can add special routing capability to move straight to the memory controller and/or off-chip bridge. If we *add* some notion of an off-chip actor, that is. | #: Basically, we need add an 'isUncacheable' flag to network messages and modify SLICC to generate cache controllers that ignore messages with the isUncacheable flag set. That should effectively force the messages to traverse their normal miss path. As an optimization (depending on interconnect, etc.), we can add special routing capability to move straight to the memory controller and/or off-chip bridge. If we *add* some notion of an off-chip actor, that is. | ||
#:: Is modifying SLICC required? I would have thought that uncached accesses could be handled entirely in Ruby, but my understanding of the division between Ruby and SLICC is probably faulty. -- Steve | #:: Is modifying SLICC required? I would have thought that uncached accesses could be handled entirely in Ruby, but my understanding of the division between Ruby and SLICC is probably faulty. -- Steve | ||
Revision as of 17:48, 12 January 2009
Sprint
We're having a coding sprint on January 13, 2009. The sprint begins at 9AM PST/11AM CST. We will begin with a phone call on Nate's conference line and use IRC throughout the day.
Goal
To get a "working" unified simulator by the end of the day.
Tasks
- Unified build environment using scons -- Arka w/ Nate and Steve supervising
- Support system call emulation mode
- Support full system mode
- atomic support, especially load locked/store conditional -- Derek
- pio support
- Deal with lack of first-class data support in Ruby
- Configuration management
- Option 1: Configuration checks between m5 and RubyConfig
- Option 2: M5 front-end directly modifying ruby parameters
- Testing infrastructure base on m5 infrastructure
- Which tests?
- What run modes to support? A fast Ruby-less or Ruby-lite mode?
- Develop detailed list of future tasks
Participants
- Nathan Binkert (All Day)
- Dan Gibson (All Day)
- David Wood (All Day, except 12:30-2pm CST)
- Derek Hower (All Day)
- Steve Reinhardt (All Day except 10-10:30 PST)
- Polina Dudnik (All Day)
- Brad Beckmann (All Day)
Long Term Tasks
- Ruby-side: Data in caches (tentative: Polina)
- I don't see a huge need for this, but if it is forced on us, it'll be good to have a junior grad student (JGS) do it. Basically we have to revive the old DATA_BLOCK flag, which worked in the 'research tree' when I joined the group. I've turned it on for my own reasons in the past, discovered it was broken, and put no effort into fixing it.
- Ruby-side: Python configuration adaptation
- M5 uses a very different configuration system than Ruby, and Ruby's was based heavily on the Simics CLI. I have a hack in place, so that it is possible to change some Ruby parameters at runtime (any at compile-time), but that should be temporary -- we should switch entirely to M5's style. It will little more than a lot of grep'ping and such, but again its a good familiarization excercise. At the same time, we can prune some fat from the configuration parameters.
- Ruby-side: M5 fast/timing mode support
- Timing mode is Ruby's normal operation. Its possible that we can use 'fast' mode to warm caches (as we currently do from gzipped traces). This will require some new coding here and there, as well as testing.
- As a point of terminology, the 'fast' mode is called 'atomic' mode in M5 (since memory transactions complete atomically), not to be confused with support for processor-atomic memory operations discussed below. There's also a third 'functional' mode (see [Memory System#Access Types]). I'd think that some support for functional mode would be required for syscall emulation, though I don't see where that is in Daniel's tarball (RubyMemoryPort has recvTiming() but not recvFunctional()). Using atomic mode for warmup would be a nice addition but isn't critical, presuming that you never needed it before (or did you do warmup via a different method?). -- Steve
- Timing mode is Ruby's normal operation. Its possible that we can use 'fast' mode to warm caches (as we currently do from gzipped traces). This will require some new coding here and there, as well as testing.
- Ruby-side: Atomic support (Derek Hower)
- This may be important for us in the long run. We'll do some kind of horrible nasty hack in the sprint, but we'll want something flexible, generic, and elegant in the long run. We'll need a clever JGS to make that happen. This will actually be quite challenging to integrate into existing protocols, as we need something like an M-locked state to really get the timing right. At the same time, we might also implement true write merging (read-merge-write timing), as an option (the other option is subblocked caches with per-subblock ECC).
- I think there are three different issues here:
- Support for Alpha LL/SC (which the M5 code confusingly calls "locked" operations).
- Support for "normal" atomic RMW ops (SPARC swaps, etc.).
- Support for uncached RMW ops (e.g., bus locking; x86 only).
- Number 1 will require some hacking, though it can mostly be done outside the coherence protocol. (There are a few efficiency and potential livelock things you want to do at the coherence level, but I believe they're optional for just getting things to work.) Number 2 should be trivial the way M5 does them, as the swap operation is sent to the cache and only requires exclusive block access (though Dan is correct that if you want to get the timing precise it's a little trickier... but if you really wanted to be realistic you wouldn't be doing the operation at the cache anyway, I don't think). Number 3 is a big pain but it's not needed until we get further along with x86 FS mode (M5 doesn't do it currently either); just wanted to raise that spectre to get people used to the idea. -- Steve
- I think there are three different issues here:
- This may be important for us in the long run. We'll do some kind of horrible nasty hack in the sprint, but we'll want something flexible, generic, and elegant in the long run. We'll need a clever JGS to make that happen. This will actually be quite challenging to integrate into existing protocols, as we need something like an M-locked state to really get the timing right. At the same time, we might also implement true write merging (read-merge-write timing), as an option (the other option is subblocked caches with per-subblock ECC).
- Ruby-side: Timing of uncached accesses( Arka)
- Basically, we need add an 'isUncacheable' flag to network messages and modify SLICC to generate cache controllers that ignore messages with the isUncacheable flag set. That should effectively force the messages to traverse their normal miss path. As an optimization (depending on interconnect, etc.), we can add special routing capability to move straight to the memory controller and/or off-chip bridge. If we *add* some notion of an off-chip actor, that is.
- Is modifying SLICC required? I would have thought that uncached accesses could be handled entirely in Ruby, but my understanding of the division between Ruby and SLICC is probably faulty. -- Steve
- I think this can be done entirely in the Ruby sequencer. Unless there is a showstopper I'm not seeing now, modifying SLICC to handle this would be a little overkill. --Derek
- Is modifying SLICC required? I would have thought that uncached accesses could be handled entirely in Ruby, but my understanding of the division between Ruby and SLICC is probably faulty. -- Steve
- Basically, we need add an 'isUncacheable' flag to network messages and modify SLICC to generate cache controllers that ignore messages with the isUncacheable flag set. That should effectively force the messages to traverse their normal miss path. As an optimization (depending on interconnect, etc.), we can add special routing capability to move straight to the memory controller and/or off-chip bridge. If we *add* some notion of an off-chip actor, that is.
- Ruby-side: Fix Directory Memory (tentative: Polina)
- DirectoryMemory.C implements 'generic' directory data by allocating permanent directory state for all cache blocks in the physical memory. This is fine, except it is stored as an array of DirectoryEntry*. The size of that array is MAX_ADDRESS / CACHE_LINE_SIZE_BYTES. That, too, is fine, except when the physical memory space isn't contigous. E.g. when addresses start at 0, run to 0x0ff, then resume at 0x100000 through 0x1000ff. It happens -- for instance when we simulate really large machines with huge complex backplanes. It /can/ happen in M5, too. Ruby also seems to leak memory because of this... even though its not really a leak. The solution is to move the whole data structure from array-based to some kind of balanced tree. Its been on the list of things to do for a long long time.
