CSome style cleanups from chat with Alexandre.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -351,8 +351,8 @@ module mkMemExePipeline#(MemExeInput inIfc)(MemExePipeline);
|
||||
`endif
|
||||
`ifdef PERFORMANCE_MONITORING
|
||||
EventsCoreMem events = unpack(0);
|
||||
events.evt_LOAD_WAIT = truncate(lat);
|
||||
events.evt_MEM_CAP_LOAD_TAG_SET = (d.tag) ? 1:0;
|
||||
events.evt_LOAD_WAIT = saturating_truncate(lat);
|
||||
events.evt_MEM_CAP_LOAD_TAG_SET = (d.tag) ? 1 : 0;
|
||||
events_wire[1] <= events;
|
||||
`endif
|
||||
endmethod
|
||||
@@ -380,8 +380,8 @@ module mkMemExePipeline#(MemExeInput inIfc)(MemExePipeline);
|
||||
`ifdef PERFORMANCE_MONITORING
|
||||
EventsCoreMem events = unpack(0);
|
||||
if (waitSt.shiftedBE == -1) events.evt_MEM_CAP_STORE = 1;
|
||||
events.evt_STORE_WAIT = truncate(lat);
|
||||
events.evt_MEM_CAP_STORE_TAG_SET = (waitSt.shiftedData.tag) ? 1:0;
|
||||
events.evt_STORE_WAIT = saturating_truncate(lat);
|
||||
events.evt_MEM_CAP_STORE_TAG_SET = (waitSt.shiftedData.tag) ? 1 : 0;
|
||||
events_wire[2] <= events;
|
||||
`endif
|
||||
// now figure out the data to be written
|
||||
@@ -407,8 +407,7 @@ module mkMemExePipeline#(MemExeInput inIfc)(MemExePipeline);
|
||||
`ifdef PERFORMANCE_MONITORING
|
||||
EventsCoreMem events = unpack(0);
|
||||
if (pack(e.byteEn) == -1) events.evt_MEM_CAP_STORE = 1;
|
||||
events.evt_STORE_WAIT = truncate(lat);
|
||||
events.evt_MEM_CAP_STORE_TAG_SET = pack(zeroExtend(countOnes(pack(e.line.tag))));
|
||||
events.evt_STORE_WAIT = saturating_truncate(lat);
|
||||
events_wire[2] <= events;
|
||||
`endif
|
||||
return tuple2(unpack(pack(e.byteEn)), e.line); // return SB entry
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1063,7 +1063,7 @@ typedef struct {
|
||||
SupCnt evt_FP;
|
||||
SupCnt evt_SC_SUCCESS;
|
||||
SupCnt evt_LOAD_WAIT;
|
||||
SupCnt evt_STORE_WAIT; // XXX Don't think we can make this make sense for Toooba. Store delays overlap so we can't get a single number that tells us the cycles spent waiting for store delays. Toooba seems to measure the delay of each store independently. Maybe we could do this with ~8bits per element? One report per cycle?
|
||||
SupCnt evt_STORE_WAIT;
|
||||
SupCnt evt_FENCE;
|
||||
SupCnt evt_F_BUSY_NO_CONSUME; // XXX
|
||||
SupCnt evt_D_BUSY_NO_CONSUME; // XXX
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user