| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
That can be recorded in a packet trace.
Change-Id: I3813ab4ea5aadeb40b355ff01f10e8ecab2bb790
Reviewed-on: https://soc-sim-internal-review.googlesource.com/3482
Reviewed-by: Rahul Thakur <rjthakur@google.com>
Reviewed-on: https://gem5-review.googlesource.com/4780
Reviewed-by: Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@arm.com>
Maintainer: Nikos Nikoleris <nikos.nikoleris@arm.com>
|
|
Used cppclean to help identify useless includes and removed them. This
involved erroneously included headers, but also cases where forward
declarations could have been used rather than a full include.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This patch fixes a use-after-delete issue in the packet probe points
by adding a PacketInfo struct to retain the key fields before passing
the packet onwards. We want to probe the packet after it is
successfully sent, but by that time the fields may be modified, and
the packet may even be deleted.
Amazingly enough the issue has gone undetected for months, and only
recently popped up in our regressions.
|
|
This changeset adds a standardized probe point type to monitor packets
in the memory system and adds two probe points to the CommMonitor
class. These probe points enable monitoring of successfully delivered
requests and successfully delivered responses.
Memory system probe listeners should use the BaseMemProbe base class
to provide a unified configuration interface and reuse listener
registration code. Unlike the ProbeListenerObject class, the
BaseMemProbe allows objects to be wired to multiple ProbeManager
instances as long as they use the same probe point name.
|
|
In order to show make PMU probe points usable across different PMU
implementations, we want a common probe interface. This patch the
namespace ProbePoins that contains typedefs for probe points that are
shared between multiple SimObjects. It also adds typedefs for the PMU
probe interface.
|
|
The ProbeListener base class automatically registers itself with a
probe manager. Currently, the class does not unregister a itself when
it is destroyed, which makes removing probes listeners somewhat
cumbersome. This patch adds an automatic call to
manager->removeListener in the ProbeListener destructor, which solves
the problem.
|
|
Small fixes to appease recent clang versions.
|
|
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%).
|
