From 986214f1816be2dc6f3758c4b80d8fbc945495b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andreas Hansson Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 04:08:24 -0500 Subject: mem: Align how snoops are handled when hitting writebacks This patch unifies the snoop handling in case of hitting writebacks with how we handle snoops hitting in the tags. As a result, we end up using the same optimisation as the normal snoops, where we inform the downstream cache if we encounter a line in Modified (writable and dirty) state, which enables us to avoid sending out express snoops to invalidate any Shared copies of the line. A few regressions consequently change, as some transactions are sunk higher up in the cache hierarchy. --- src/mem/cache/cache.cc | 58 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) (limited to 'src') diff --git a/src/mem/cache/cache.cc b/src/mem/cache/cache.cc index 294f807ba..7a5d22ef0 100644 --- a/src/mem/cache/cache.cc +++ b/src/mem/cache/cache.cc @@ -2152,48 +2152,34 @@ Cache::recvTimingSnoopReq(PacketPtr pkt) return; } - if (wb_pkt->cmd == MemCmd::WritebackDirty) { - // we have dirty data, and so will proceed to respond + // conceptually writebacks are no different to other blocks in + // this cache, so the behaviour is modelled after handleSnoop, + // the difference being that instead of querying the block + // state to determine if it is dirty and writable, we use the + // command and fields of the writeback packet + bool respond = wb_pkt->cmd == MemCmd::WritebackDirty && + pkt->needsResponse() && pkt->cmd != MemCmd::InvalidateReq; + bool have_writable = !wb_pkt->hasSharers(); + bool invalidate = pkt->isInvalidate(); + + if (!pkt->req->isUncacheable() && pkt->isRead() && !invalidate) { + assert(!pkt->needsWritable()); + pkt->setHasSharers(); + wb_pkt->setHasSharers(); + } + + if (respond) { pkt->setCacheResponding(); - if (!pkt->needsWritable()) { - // the packet should end up in the Shared state (non - // writable) on the completion of the fill - pkt->setHasSharers(); - // similarly, the writeback is no longer passing - // writeable (the receiving cache should consider the - // block Owned rather than Modified) - wb_pkt->setHasSharers(); - } else { - // we need to invalidate our copy. we do that - // below. - assert(pkt->isInvalidate()); + + if (have_writable) { + pkt->setResponderHadWritable(); } + doTimingSupplyResponse(pkt, wb_pkt->getConstPtr(), false, false); - } else { - // on hitting a clean writeback we play it safe and do not - // provide a response, the block may be dirty somewhere - // else - assert(wb_pkt->isCleanEviction()); - // The cache technically holds the block until the - // corresponding message reaches the crossbar - // below. Therefore when a snoop encounters a CleanEvict - // or WritebackClean message we must call - // setHasSharers (just like when it encounters a - // Writeback) to avoid the snoop filter prematurely - // clearing the holder bit in the crossbar below - if (!pkt->needsWritable()) { - pkt->setHasSharers(); - // the writeback is no longer passing writeable (the - // receiving cache should consider the block Owned - // rather than Modified) - wb_pkt->setHasSharers(); - } else { - assert(pkt->isInvalidate()); - } } - if (pkt->isInvalidate()) { + if (invalidate) { // Invalidation trumps our writeback... discard here // Note: markInService will remove entry from writeback buffer. markInService(wb_entry, false); -- cgit v1.2.3