[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #20 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
the other thing, an aspect of the memory hazard and addr matching matrices:

* loads are separated completely from stores
* stores likewise
* atomic memory operations likewise (by marking them as both LD *and* ST)
* the *batch* order is what is preserved
* only one atomic ever gets sent through (batch of QTY 1).
* due to the expansion of the last 4 bits into a bitmap as part of addr_match,
no operations in any one "batch" will have overlapping bytes.  ever.

therefore there is no need - at all - to preserve "order" in any way shape or
form (hence why i said that we do not need a "queue" per se, we need more a L0
Cache/buffer).

(this wording - L0 cache/buffer - came out of the discussion on comp.arch with
Ivan. 8 entries is likely to be sufficient for us)

to emphasise:

* *at no time* will the DMs put out a mixed batch of LDs, STs or Atomics.
* acknowledging, clearing and completing each batch before moving onto the next
is absolutely critical.
* except for IO and Atomics (which will only be sent down one at a time anyway)
the order of LDs (or STs) can be entirely arbitrary.

also we can get away with full IO memory order preservation by treating them as
"Atomic".  this will result in them only being sent one at a time, in strict
order.

if the exact same dependency system were used at the L2 layer we could do full
SMP TSO with no difficulty.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #21 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #19)
> (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #18)

> > ok so those 1 MB texture buffers you mentioned before are accessed multiple
> > times in near-succession?
> 
> Yes. Though several different textures can be accessed in an interleaved
> fashion.

ok that's fine.

so what will happen, because the addr match is on the last 4k (11 bits),
anything that has on the same 4k LSBs even though the MSBs do not match, gets
delayed a couple of cycles and, after the false positive clears through the
memory system, the "not-actually-conflicting" LDST's turn will come next.

Mitch's analysis showed that in practice this is such a rare occurrence that
the penalty is not worth being concerned about.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #22 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/architecture/6600scoreboard/

i just updated this page, a new section "L0 Cache/Buffer".  it contains a
diagram i did a couple weeks ago:

https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/architecture/6600scoreboard/600x-mem_l0_to_l1_bridge.png

the actual algorithm is incredibly simple:

* priority picker picks one (and only one) address (per L0 cache/buffer)
* for all rows greater than the one picked, match against all MSBs of
  the address, bits 5 and above.
* all matching rows, OR the 16-bit bitmap representing {LSBs 0-3 plus
LD/ST-len} 

those ORed bitmaps become the "byte read/write-enable" lines on a given
L1 cache line.

that's it - that's all there is to it.

the "complex" bit is the N-in/out multiplexing from 16-in on the 8 LD/ST
FunctionUnits (2 ports per FU because 1 is for "normal" requests and the
2nd is for misaligned addresses)

however i just realised that if we can accept an increase in size of the L0
cache/buffer from 8 to 16 entries - or to limit the number of LD/ST Function
Units to 6 - then we can instead simply have one *dedicated* "entry" for
each and every FU, and the entire MASSIVE 16-to-4 multiplexer completely
disappears.

i'll draw it out.

the caveat: we now have a 16-entry (or 12-entry) L0 Cache/Buffer, which
unfortunately requires up to a 16-way CAM on the *ENTIRE* address from
bits 5 and upwards.

it *might* be possible to inherit (yet again) from the addr_match.py classes,
which already has a full triangular comparison of all-against-all in 
bits 4 thru 11.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #23 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/mem_l0_to_l1_bridge_v2.png

ok done. it works like this:

* each FU (0-7) produces 2 LD/ST addresses which are broken up like this:

  addr1[0..3] addr1[4] addr1[5..11] addr1[12..48]
  addr2[0..3] addr2[4] addr2[5..11] addr2[12..48]

  where the relationship between addr1 and addr2 is:

       addr1[5..11] + 1 == addr2[5..11]

* addr1[0..3], in combination with the LD/ST len (1/2/3/4) is turned into
  a bytemap mask, 24 bits in length.  this bytemask is broken down into
  two halves:

      bytemask1, bytemask2 = map_addr(addr, LDST_len) [0..15], [16..23]

  i.e. anything that does not fit fully into bytemask1 is a "misaligned"
  LD/ST and the remainder overflows into bytemask2.

* if addr[4..11] == 0b111111111 and bytemask2 is non-zero, this indicates
  a "misaligned major page fault".

   this is a situation that we are *not* going to deal with (and it has
   been catered for in the 3.0B spec)

* all 16 FU LD/ST re-encodings of the (addr, LDST_len) are lined up in a
  table.  this table breaks down, alternating between:

  * FU # aligned     or FU # misaligned
  * addr1[5:11]      or addr2[5:11]
  * addr[12:48] for *BOTH*
  * bytemap1[0:15]   or bytemap2[0:15]
  * data1[0:15]      or data2[15]

note that addr[4] is *not* included in this because it is used to select
whether L1 cache bank #0 or #1 is to be used.

the algorithm for merging of LD/STs into *one single L1 cache line* is:

1). With a PriorityPicker find the index (row) of the first valid LD/ST request

2). For all entries after that row, compare Addr[5:11] and Addr[12:48].

3). If "match" on both, OR the byte-mask for that row onto the output.

that's it.  that's really all there is to it.


one thing that's important to note: there are only actually *eight* comparisons
of addr[12:48] needed (not 16), because the addr[12:48] is *identical* for
every *pair* of rows.

that however is still *seven* potential 36-bit CAM hits (seven lots of 36-bit
XOR gates).  which is a hell of a lot.

if we could somehow use the L1 "tag" in place of Addr[12:48], that would save a
huge amount of power.  unfortunately, every way i can think of that would get
the tag *into* L0 is either equally power-consuming, or results in multi-cycle
latency.

if we could reliably use a hash instead, i would suggest it.  however,
unfortunately, the risk of a collision is too detrimental consequences.

the "sensible" option that does not have too detrimental an effect on
performance is: reduce the number of LD/ST FUs to 6.  that would result in only
12 rows.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://bugs.libre-soc.org/
                   |                            |show_bug.cgi?id=289

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #24 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
i just realised something:

* misaligned LD/STs will create a pair of LD/STs (on each FU) where it
  is *guaranteed* that Addr[4] for the LO-HI request will be mutually
  exclusive.  if Addr[4] is 0 for the LO request of the pair, Addr[4]
  is *guaranteed* to be 1 for the HI request of the pair

* therefore splitting into L0 left/right LO/HI isn't going to work...
  unless we accept that the LO/HI requests actually *cross over*!

FU0 LO -> L0 left  if Addr[4] == 0  else L0 right
FU0 HI -> L0 right addr 4 will be 1 else L0 right

this has the strong disadvantage of not keeping the addresses that
we *know* have the same bits in the upper parts [12:48].

the other way to do it therefore is for the L0 to be only 8 rows
deep, comprising *two* 128-bit entries, i.e. to be integrated
L0-odd and L0-even where previously it was two separate L0 caches.

two L1 caches would then connect to that.

i'll think it through.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #25 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
done.

https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/twin_l0_cache_buffer.jpg

the key is that there are only 8 rows (not 16) however each row contains
*two* byte-masks, *two* addr[5:11] and data sets, but *ONE* addr[12:48]
per row.

multiplexing is exclusively limited to 2-in 2-out, on a per-row basis.
each FU having two ports need *only* perform multiplexing on its *own row*
(not to any other rows), using addr[4] to select which bank the two data
sets are to go into.

the thing is that because the two data sets from each FU are consecutive
addresses (one aligned, one mis-aligned, both coming from the exact same
LD/ST), we *know* that they will both go simultaneously into the row:
it's just a matter of which one goes into which row.

so we need a 2-in 2-out crossbar, no multiplexing, no arbitration or
delay-gates needed.

i'll do the writeup now
https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/architecture/6600scoreboard/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #26 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
Writeup of the interface / API needed for LDST to talk to the LDST
Computational Unit.  Additional signals will come through such as length, type,
atomic etc
these are in order of time sequence

(edit this comment as necessary):

LD
--

* in: is_ld
* in: address
* in: len (1/2/4/8)
* in: go_addr
* out: addr_ok (no exception will occur)
* out: addr_exc (exception type)
* in: exc_ack

* out: ld_data
* out: ld_data_ok
* in: ld_data_ack (acknowledge data)

ST
--

* is_st
* in: address
* in: len (1/2/4/8)
* in: go_addr
* out: addr_ok (no exception will occur)
* out: addr_exc (exception type)
* in: exc_ack

* in: st_data
* in: go_st
* out: st_data_ack

Notes
-----

* both identical up to address exception

* beyond addr_ok the operation MUST be successful.  L1 Cache, TLB etc MUST all
have been done

* after addr_ok sent, LD data can be placed as soon as ready on output bus
without requiring "permission" from a go_ld signal.

* LDSTCompUnit will wait for EITHER addr exception OR data out.

* addr_exc is acknowledged by exc_ack and both LDSTCompUnit and L0 Cache/Buffer
go back to reset.

* ld_data_ok MUST NOT be asserted if addr_exc was asserted

* ld_ack therefore acknowledges data and unit goes back to reset once sent.

* ST on the other hand must have the ADDR checking (and L1 cache line loading)
done separate from the write.

* ST therefore has two phases: addr ok (or not) followed by waiting for
permission to carry out the actual store.

* the ST data in *will* be valid at the clock where go_st is raised.

* go_st will *not* be raised by the LDSTCompUnit until *after* addr_ok/exc

* again: no exceptions can occur after the addr_ok signal is raised.

* data_ack indicates that the ST unit can reset

* the difference is that in LD Mode, the L0 Cache/Buffer is "in charge",
driving the go-ack

* however for ST this is the OPPOSITE, the LDSTCompUnit is "in charge", the
switchover point of who is in charge being after ADDR and TLB checking and
reservation of L1 Cache lines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #27 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
i may need to implement a very basic (working) of the API in
http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216#c26
effectively a thin "wrapper" around nmigen Memory rdport and wrport.

it's not quite a perfect match for nmigen rdport/wrport as the
address phase needs latching in, separately from how r/w data is handled.

i'll make sure that the (decoded) opcode is passed over because it
contains crucial information (not just ld/st-length).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #28 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
i've added the "PortInterface" which connects between the LDST Computational
Unit and the L0 Cache/Buffer.

https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=soc.git;a=commitdiff;h=80f66556795c80603cf7b33140adc27e01e37155

this is the "interface" (API) which is implemented in comment #26 and
i put here as well:
https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/architecture/memory_and_cache/

i've also added a "subset" of the POWER decode flags that come directly
from decoding the instruction, only passing those that are relevant to
actual LD/ST operations:

https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=soc.git;a=commitdiff;h=66381f20d789aaf74511c2d6a892093940f34ce5

if there's anything missing from that it means that first the actual
instruction needs to be added to the POWER decoder *first*.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216
Bug 216 depends on bug 257, which changed state.

Bug 257 Summary: Implement demo Load/Store queueing algorithm
https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CONFIRMED                   |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #29 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
jacob on looking at minerva they did something which i think would be really
useful to copy.

they created "cacheless" memory classes and "cached" versions conforming to the
same interface.

this allows an incremental approach where testing of one component is not
critically dependent on another that hasn't been written yet.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #30 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yiyw4abJpE

a walkthrough video which explains the components (the ones that
already exist) and explains what's needed.  crucially, the existing
components provide certain guarantees that, by the time it comes
to what the L0 Cache/Buffer has to do, is a ridiculously simple
job.

i forgot to mention: after the PriorityPicker, the "selection" of the
units which are "above" that first-picked row, we actually already
have some code which does that: michael wrote it, for the LE/GE/EQ
"PartitionedSignal" comparators.

the class is called "RippleLSB":
https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=ieee754fpu.git;a=blob;f=src/ieee754/part_cmp/ripple.py;h=032512047f2e58c3ce50bc869e4a064738647943;hb=cec6f51e8b2a1ba2c2f83965be7219885ea163f0#l13

this can be moved to nmutil.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #31 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #30)

> the class is called "RippleLSB":
> https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=ieee754fpu.git;a=blob;f=src/ieee754/part_cmp/
> ripple.py;h=032512047f2e58c3ce50bc869e4a064738647943;
> hb=cec6f51e8b2a1ba2c2f83965be7219885ea163f0#l13
> 
> this can be moved to nmutil.

done

https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=ieee754fpu.git;a=blob;f=src/ieee754/part_cmp/ripple.py;hb=HEAD

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #32 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
jacob i've added documentation of the requirements of PortInterface:
https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=soc.git;a=commitdiff;h=6404cf302734700514e7553bdf6c5a5df5badeb8

i'm doing a "dummy" one at the moment which will implement this API,
only allowing the one (and only one) Memory read/write per cycle.
this makes it clear exactly where the "merging" needs to take place.

putting the (twin/quad) L1 Caches in place once the L0CacheBuffer
has a single-cycle 128-bit-wide interface should be dead straightforward.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #33 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
okaaay, it's messy but functional, and, importantly, illustrates the API,
jacob.

i've not put in actual LD/ST width yet, so the tests "pass" based on storing
a 16-bit value into a hard-coded-16-bit-wide "Memory", the important thing
is the signalling and API conformance, illustrating the timing that's
required (and expected) by LDSTCompUnit.

at least this allows me to move on to the (new, ridiculously-redrawn)
LDSTCompUnit.

we'll need to coordinate when it comes to adding twin ports (for misaligned)
however it may just be ok there to assume the misaligned port is never
used by LDSTCompUnit as the 2nd port is being added to L0CacheBuffer, get
the unit tests working for L0CacheBuffer, then add it to LDSTCompUnit, and
*then* add unit tests to LDSTCompUnit that try using it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216
Bug 216 depends on bug 257, which changed state.

Bug 257 Summary: Implement demo Load/Store queueing algorithm
https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |DEFERRED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |---

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #34 from Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> ---
What do you think of the idea to write a single-op-at-a-time memory interface
with all the caches & stuff to work with the rest of the SoC?

it will be much simpler to get right and not take as much time, then, after
that works, we can work on the much more complex multi-op version. That way, we
will have something that works even if the multi-op version doesn't end up
working in time for the october tape out.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #35 from Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> ---
The proposed single-op-at-a-time interface would work through PortInterface,
since you already wrote a lot of the code needed to work with it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #36 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #35)
> The proposed single-op-at-a-time interface would work through PortInterface,
> since you already wrote a lot of the code needed to work with it.

the code i wrote is sufficient to get me to the point where i can test
LDSTCompUnit.

it already does exactly what you propose.

as a concept, it is "technically correct" and would actually "not corrupt
memory"

however it will have performance that is, ultimately, a waste of effort.

adding dual 128 bit memory interfaces would be 10% utilised, because they would
receive only one 8-64 bit request.

we might as well just use minerva's L1 code directly, in full, only one
interface 
 with the only change being to expand it to 64 bit from 32.

in addition, misaligned requests would not 
be handlee at the hardware level, leaving us non-compliant with the POWER spec.

bottom line is that the current code is for testing purposes and prototyping. 
its usefulness in particular is as a "mock test" i.e. to ensure that a single
LDSTCompUnit "works" and that is why i wrote it, *not* to actually put it into
a production chip.

it can in no way be used to *properly* test the parallel capability of the
engine because it will only do one request at a time.

if we want to be taken seriously and want the performance of a GPU we need the
twin buffer implemented in the next week.

i will have the LDSTCompUnit done by then and we will need to begin testing of
parallel LD/STs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #37 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #34)
> What do you think of the idea to write a single-op-at-a-time memory
> interface with all the caches & stuff to work with the rest of the SoC?

as intermediary steps this is a good idea.   the code i wrote yesterday already
does exactly that (and is why i did it. it "works". performance sucks.)

however stopping at a level that does not meet the requirements of keeping
those twin 128 bit L1 caches fully occupied on every cycle is not.



> it will be much simpler to get right and not take as much time, then, after
> that works, we can work on the much more complex multi-op version. That way,
> we will have something that works even if the multi-op version doesn't end
> up working in time for the october tape out.

yes.

although it will suck.

strictly speaking just as in minerva if you look at the code there exists
"cache bypassed" LoadStore code.

by using that code directly we also have the option to switch off the L1 cache,
making unit testing much easier.

and to emphasise, again (i have mentioned this about four times but have not
received a response), the minerva L1 code and associates LDST compiletime
reconfigureable Interface does *not* need duplicating.  it is good enough as-is
and can simply be expanded to 64 bit then quqdrupled up, or expanded to 128 bit
and doubled up, and 128 to 64 bit Wishbone Arbiters dropped on the front.

with only needing to connect to two well defined interfaces (multiple
PortInterfaces on one side and multiple minerva LDSTCache interfaces on the
other) this task is much simpler and straightforward than it seems.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #38 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=soc.git;a=commitdiff;h=65a2218914d3f9a82d161c4cb946e5332d49b666

i've added a TODO class "DualPortSplitter" - actually it should
probably kinda be that LDSTSplitter should be adapted to conform
to PortInterface.

can you do that task, jacob? it's a simple self-contained task that's
an important step - no need to examine any of the other code.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://bugs.libre-soc.org/
                   |                            |show_bug.cgi?id=302

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://bugs.libre-soc.org/
                   |                            |show_bug.cgi?id=318

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #39 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
see 
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/pipermail/libre-riscv-dev/2020-May/007196.html


a new class in soc/experiment/l0_cache.py is needed which
implements that core algorithm: the one that uses a PriorityPicker to
select one of the "active" LD/STs, then use that to OR-select an
output.

please assume the following inputs:

* an array of 8 Signals of length 8 bits which tell you which
addresses have matched against which other addresses.
  ( we call this the "address-match" array)
* an array of 8 Records containing {16 bytes data, 16 "enable" lines}

and the following output:

* a Record containing {16 bytes data, 16 "enable" lines}

in the address-match array, you want to find the first non-zero line.
once you have that index, use it to OR the 16 bytes and 16 "enables"
from the 8 records, into the output.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #40 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
Tobias: i've added a stub class "DataMerger".  please can you focus on
implementing
that.  it should be approximately... 30 lines of code, maximum.  start by
committing
a class with the Record Layout to be used by the input (Nx) and output (1x)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #41 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:23 PM Tobias Platen <libre-soc@platen-software.de>
wrote:
>
> this evening:
>
> I began working on the elaboratable function of the DataMerger class, which I still haven't commited yet.
> If all bits in addr_array_i are zero the output will be zero too as nothing needs to be merged.

that would be correct.  it would indicate that the LD/ST unit is idle.


> I' now asking myself weather the interface is correct, and how the DataMerger is used.

it is used as in the diagram in the video.  it is also the piece marked
"Priority Picker" in this diagram:

https://libre-soc.org/3d_gpu/180nm_single_core_testasic_memlayout.jpg

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #42 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #41)

> > I began working on the elaboratable function of the DataMerger class, which I still haven't commited yet.
> > If all bits in addr_array_i are zero the output will be zero too as nothing needs to be merged.
> 
> that would be correct.  it would indicate that the LD/ST unit is idle.

hmmm... the 2D NxN addr_array_i indicates address matches.  if we assume that
in
the array that the diagonal (X=Y i.e. addr[n,n]) will always be set for any
given
LD/ST then there will always be one active LD/ST.

this is kind-of "the address matches against itself".

thus, if there is only one LD/ST, and it is from unit 5, then addr_array_i[5,5]
will be TRUE

thus, yes, we can assume that when all bits in addr_array_i are zero, the LD/ST
unit is idle.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #43 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
Created attachment 63
  --> https://bugs.libre-soc.org/attachment.cgi?id=63&action=edit
over-run 80 chars

tobias, hi, code-review:

* please keep to under 80 chars.  the best way to do this is to make sure
  that the editor window is only 80 chars wide.

* please do not make multi-purpose commits.  the commit contains about a
  hundred lines of undocumented whitespace changes... *AND* contains
  code changes

* range(0, array_size) does not need the 0,.  just range(array_size)

* the 2D array can actually be done as a 1D array of Signals of length N

        for i in range(0, array_size):
            ul2 = []
            for j in range(0, array_size):
                ul2.append(Signal())

   can just be:

        for i in range(array_size):
            ul2.append(Signal())

* Signals all need to be reset_less=True (with very few exceptions)

* Signals in loops do not end up being named properly ($1, $2) which
  gets really annoying.

  add a parameter name="addr_match_%d" % j

* the traditional industry-standard short-name in hardware for "byte enable"
  is just "en".

        layout = (('data', 128),
                  ('en', 16)
                  )

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #44 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
excellent, tobias.  i added some docstrings, please do git pull and carry on.
i just had to redo the docstring i just wrote after noticing (only now) several
days of using a MACos terminal at 86x30 not 80x30.  sigh :)

anyway: the docstring should now show clearly what's needed.

commit db13193e20441c6988e7a1b3969979461136eca3
Author: Tobias Platen <tplaten@posteo.de>
Date:   Mon May 25 15:41:49 2020 +0200

    refactoring (see #216 Comment 43)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #45 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
tobias, i just noticed in soc.regfile.regfile.py, this code:

    def elaborate(self, platform):
        m = Module()
        for (regs, p) in self._rdports:
            #print (p)
            ror = treereduce(list(regs))
            m.d.comb += p.data_o.eq(ror)

that's pretty much exactly what is needed for DataMerger.  the ORing of
all of the data together (from only those with a "match" in the selected row,
though), is "it".

however bear in mind, both the enable *and* data signals need to be merged
out.  you may need to do them separately: one treereduce for the en and another
for the data, both "optionally" controlled by the match on the selected row.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #46 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
tobias, the DataMerger class looks good as a first cut: it looks like it
does the job.

couple of things:

----

+            for j in range(self.addr):

this should be self.array_size



----

+                with m.If(self.addr_match_i[j]>0):

instead of > 0, bool() can (should) be used:

                with m.If(self.addr_match_i[j].bool()):


-----

+                with m.If(self.addr_match_i[idx][j] && valid):

ah.  in nmigen, you can't use boolean operators (&& or ||) because
there is no operator-overload for "bool".  a PEP was actually raised
about this and, rather short-sightedly, turned down.

you therefore have to use the bit-wise operators, and make sure
that the things that you are comparing are only 1 bit wide.

                with m.If(self.addr_match_i[idx][j] & valid):

------

+            self.data_o.eq(0)

this line is not needed.  combinatorial circuits default to zero unless
you set some of the Signal initialisation arguments.



-----

+                    self.data_o.eq(self.data_i[j]|self.data_o)

this isn't python programming, unfortunately: you can't treat Signals in
a loop as "sequentially-accumulating variables".

this is why i said to use treereduce.  or, actually, now you can import
ortreereduce, from soc.regfile.regfile.

so do this instead:

            l = []
            for j in range(self.array_size):
                select = self.addr_match_i[idx][j] & valid)
                l.append(Mux(select, self.data_i[j], 0)
            self.data_o.eq(ortreereduce(l)

see how that works? because hardware is effectively "statically-assigned
variables", you can't really do dynamic-accumulation.  or... you can, but
it will create a massive chain of gates and the completion time will be
awful.

:)

so, use a Mux-in-a-loop, and tree-reduce them.  strictly speaking we
could hypothetically use the 2nd parameter of nmutil.utils.treereduce
to actually do the Mux there, reduce things down to maybe one or two
lines of code, however that's getting obtuse and "too clever" :)
too clever means the code becomes unreadable.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #47 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
hi tobias, saw the latest commit, getting there.

------
            comb, sync = m.d.comb, m.d.sync

sync is not needed


-------
            #(1) pick a row
            m.submodules.pick = pick = PriorityEncoder(self.array_size)
            for j in range(self.array_size):
                with m.If(self.addr_match_i[j].bool()):
                    pick.i.eq(pick.i||(1<<j))

again: as previous comment, this is not python (and the comb += is missing
at the front, which means that the nmigen AST is discarded, doing nothing)

everything is parallel hardware, not sequential python.  the nmigen AST
captures that parallel hardware definition.

so, here, we want each bit of the PriorityPicker input to connect to one
bit of the test of whether a line in addr_match_i is empty/non-empty.
therefore, we need to assign addr_match_i[i].bool() to each bit of pick.i:

            # assign each priority-picker input bit the test whether the
            # address match line is non-empty.
            for j in range(self.array_size):
                comb += pick.i[j].eq(self.addr_match_i[j].bool())

simple as that.



-------
            self.data_o.eq(ortreereduce(l))


import is missing.


-----

fix those and it'll be time to move on to a unit test.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #48 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
----------

hmmm...

            l = []
            for j in range(self.array_size):
                select = self.addr_match_i[idx][j] & valid
                l.append(Mux(select, self.data_i[j], 0))
            self.data_o.eq(ortreereduce(l))

this would be better / clearer:

            with m.If(valid):
                l = []
                for j in range(self.array_size):
                    select = self.addr_match_i[idx][j]
                    l.append(Mux(select, self.data_i[j], 0))
                self.data_o.eq(ortreereduce(l))


-----

return m is missing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #49 from Tobias Platen <libre-soc@platen-software.de> ---
I've added a unittest for DataMerger and I get the following import error:
cannot import name 'treereduce' from 'nmutil.util'
I git pulled the nmutil repo but there were no changes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #50 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Tobias Platen from comment #49)
> I've added a unittest for DataMerger and I get the following import error:
> cannot import name 'treereduce' from 'nmutil.util'
> I git pulled the nmutil repo but there were no changes.

see earlier comment.

"this is why i said to use treereduce.  or, actually, now you can import
ortreereduce, from soc.regfile.regfile."

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #51 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #50)

> "this is why i said to use treereduce.  or, actually, now you can import
> ortreereduce, from soc.regfile.regfile."

saw commit d42161569bfaad5f0703f67d41634fd460719c1b

excellent.  (btw remember to do whitespace and actual code-changes separately)

(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #48)

> -----
> 
> return m is missing.

return m is still missing.  this will prevent the module from working,
because the AST - which was constructed by the elaborate function - is
entirely blank (None), due to the return result being implicitly None.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://bugs.libre-soc.org/
                   |                            |show_bug.cgi?id=263

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #52 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
tobias: the DataMerger class is coming along well.  now that the unit
test passes (doesn't break anything) feel free to enable it by default,
and then use it to confirm, incrementally, from that point on, that
what you commit will now at least "not break anything" :)

btw do give each DataMergerRecord() a unique name.  this so that when
people inspect the graphviz, each DataMergerRecord will have a prefix
{name}_data etc. by which they can be identified correctly with the
python source code.

next bit: unit test.  after that: formal proof.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #53 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
commit 23b682daa011ace5cfbfbe2b60ece7369cbe403c
Author: Tobias Platen <tplaten@posteo.de>
Date:   Sat May 30 21:11:02 2020 +0200

    unit test for DataMerger

looks good, tobias.  i added some use of "Settle()" which should be
used (as we just learned thanks to Cesar highlighting it) after any
combinatorial logic changes, rather than doing a full one-cycle "yield"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #54 from Tobias Platen <libre-soc@platen-software.de> ---
Before running formal verification, I first had to upgrade nmigen, because my
code works using records. When using an old version of nmigen, I got the
following error. 
> Object (rec <unnamed> data en) cannot be used as a key in value collections

The second one is a bug in nmigen when it invokes sby with an empty working
directory, which is the current directory in this case. I set it to "." with
the following lines added to the code.

+        if(len(spec_dir)==0):
+            spec_dir="."

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #55 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
proof_datamerger.py:

                for b in range(0,8):

just range(8).  there is no need to specify a start range of 0

            comb += dut.addr_array_i[j].eq(AnySeq(dut.array_size))
            comb += dut.data_i[j].eq(AnySeq(16+128))

AnySeq is for synchronous data where the value changes on every clock.
use AnyConst instead which will not change.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #56 from Tobias Platen <libre-soc@platen-software.de> ---
fixed

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #57 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Tobias Platen from comment #56)
> fixed

fantastic.  you'll see i added some comments in the DualPortInterface.  i think
what might need to be done is:

* to have the the incoming PortInterface.oper_i.data_len
  be one unary bit only (0b1, 0b10, 0b100, 0b1000)

* however for the outgoing ones, due to the "misalignment", they
  can be set to 0b11, 0b111, 0b101, and so on.

actually this is ok! :)  it is a 4-bit field after all.

so basically:

* one LD/ST comes in
* it will be routed to EITHER left (bit 4 ==0) OR right (bit 4==1)
* misalignment possibility results in a *SPLIT* LD/ST that **ALWAYS**
  goes out the **OTHER** port.
* if both ports are to be used, the data from both has to be
  recombined.

now, there are a few things that are different from LDSTSplitter:

1) LDSTSplitter rather hilariously treats the data as 16-bit, not 16-byte.
   this is easily fixable by using Repl on the mask and multiplying by 8
   and so on

2) LDSTSplitter does *NOT* do the correct bit-4 routing.  it is HARDCODED
   to ALWAYS assign non-misaligned data to port 0

            with m.If(mask2 == mzero):
                comb += self.valid_o.eq(self.sld_valid_o[0]) <-- wrong

   fixing that is slightly complicated in that ld1 and ld2 need to dynamically
   swap over.

3) LDSTSplitter although it creates the mask correctly (using LenExpand)
   does not "re-create" the *binary* version of that, which is the key
   information that needs to go back into PortInterface.oper_i.data_len
   along with the "altered" addresses.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #58 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
worked out that this:
https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/minerva/wishbone.py;hb=HEAD

is exactly what we need to do the arbitration of odd/even dual ports.
actually there could be four 64-bit wishbone buses, each seeking
arbitration onto the one 64-bit memory bus:

* LSB 64-bit half of the 128-bit ODD L0CacheBuffer Port interface
* MSB 64-bit half of the 128-bit ODD L0CacheBuffer Port interface
* LSB 64-bit half of the 128-bit EVEN L0CacheBuffer Port interface
* MSB 64-bit half of the 128-bit EVEN L0CacheBuffer Port interface

the detection as to whether any given one of these should be enabled
is simply done by ORing the relevent sections of the 16-bit byte-enable
column line (wen / ren).  this comes directly from the "en" lines
from DataMerger.

* half (8) of the Datamerger byte-enable lines will go to enabling
  one of the 64-bit Wishbone interfaces
* the other half (8) will go to the other one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] New: LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

            Bug ID: 216
           Summary: LOAD STORE buffer needed
           Product: Libre Shakti M-Class
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: Other
                OS: Linux
            Status: CONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: ---
         Component: Source Code
          Assignee: lkcl@lkcl.net
          Reporter: lkcl@lkcl.net
                CC: libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
   NLnet milestone: ---

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215#c5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #1 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #5)
> (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson L
> > whew.
> > 
> > so that's 128-bit-wide for _textures_... that's on the *load* side.  are
> > there any simultaneous (overlapping) "store" requirements? are the
> > code-loops tight enough to require simultaneous 128-bit LD *and* 128-bit ST?
> 
> yes and no -- there is code that will benefit from simultaneous loads and
> stores (memcpy and probably most other code that has both loads and stores
> in a loop), however it isn't strictly necessary.

ok.

> It will be highly beneficial to support multiple simultaneous 8, 16, 32, or
> 64-bit loads to a single cache line all being able to complete
> simultaneously independently of alignment in that cache line. 

yes i have been thinking about this for a day since getting the LDSTCompUnit
operational.  it currently uses a "fake" memory block (for testing) and the
next step is to look at this.

> Also
> misaligned loads that cross cache lines (and possibly page boundaries),
> though those don't need to complete in a single cache access.

ok

> All the above also applies to stores, though they can be a little slower
> since they are less common.
> 
> I realize that that will require a really big realignment network, however
> the performance advantages I think are worth it.

yes.  we cannot have high performance computation yet no good getting data in
and out.

> For a scheduling algorithm for loads that are ready to run (6600-style
> scheduler sent to load/store unit for execution, no conflicting stores
> in-front, no memory fences in-front), we can have a queue of memory ops and
> each cycle we pick the load at the head of the queue and then search from
> the head to tail for additional loads that target the same cache line
> stopping at the first memory fence, conflicting store, etc. Once those loads
> are selected, they are removed from the queue (probably by marking them as
> removed) and sent thru the execution pipeline.
> 
> We can use a similar algorithm for stores.

right. ok. thanks to Mitch Alsup, i have a Memory Dependency matrix that takes
care of discerning and preserving the loads and stores into batches.  we could
if we wanted to do not only TSO, it can handle cross-SMP in a way that makes
atomic memory either entirely moot or dead trivial.  this i need a little more
research on.

anyway the point is: LOADs as a batch are already identified and hold up any
STOREs, and vice-versa.

> To find the required loads, we can use a network based on recursively
> summarizing chunks of the queue entries' per-cycle ready state, then
> reversing direction from the summary back to the queue entries to tell the
> entries which, if any, execution port they will be running on this cycle.
> There is then a mux for each execution port in the load pipeline to move the
> required info from the queue to the pipeline. The network design is based on
> the carry lookahead network for a carry lookahead adder, which allows taking
> O(N*log(N)) space and O(log(N)) gate latency.

with the Memory DMs already in place, taking care of separating LOAD from STORE
batches, would it be necessary to do that? (i don't know the answer).

also the ordering is not important (Weak Memory Model) and so a buffer will
*only* have LOADs in or STOREs but not both, and it becomes possible to analyse
the buffer and see if a batch is present.

actually if we had a (really) small CAM that mirrored the way the L1 cache
worked, that might work.  2 maybe 4 lines or something.

then you can detect when the lines are fully occupied...

hmmm needs thought

> Loads/Stores that cross a cache boundary can be split into 2 load/store ops
> when sent to the queue and loads reunited when they both complete. They
> should be relatively rare, so we can probably support reuniting only 1 op
> per cycle.

yes.

> RMW Atomic ops and fences can be put in both load and store queues where
> they are executed once they reach the head of both queues.

these luckily Mitch told me you simply set *both* MemRead *and* MemWrite hazard
and the result is fascinatingly they have to be atomic, locking out all other
LDs, STs, and, because of the way the DMs work, preserve the order as well.

so there will *be* no overlap between atomics, LDs, or STs.

now, whether these all go into the same queue, i don't know.

the main thing is, if we have a queue it has to basically not just be a queue,
it has to be a cache as well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |programmerjake@gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #1)
> (In reply to Jacob Lifshay from
> http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215#c5)
> > For a scheduling algorithm for loads that are ready to run (6600-style
> > scheduler sent to load/store unit for execution, no conflicting stores
> > in-front, no memory fences in-front), we can have a queue of memory ops and
> > each cycle we pick the load at the head of the queue and then search from
> > the head to tail for additional loads that target the same cache line
> > stopping at the first memory fence, conflicting store, etc. Once those loads
> > are selected, they are removed from the queue (probably by marking them as
> > removed) and sent thru the execution pipeline.
> > 
> > We can use a similar algorithm for stores.
> 
> right. ok. thanks to Mitch Alsup, i have a Memory Dependency matrix that
> takes care of discerning and preserving the loads and stores into batches. 
> we could if we wanted to do not only TSO, it can handle cross-SMP in a way
> that makes atomic memory either entirely moot or dead trivial.  this i need
> a little more research on.
> 
> anyway the point is: LOADs as a batch are already identified and hold up any
> STOREs, and vice-versa.

Ok. The algorithm I proposed can still be used for scheduling loads/stores
inside each batch and deciding which cache line to access each cycle, since I
think the memory dependency matrix currently handles deciding which ops to
execute each cycle by relying on a slow and simple FIFO algorithm. The queue in
the algorithm I proposed can be the same HW as the memory dependency matrix, so
it would end up as a hybrid algorithm.

The recursive summary mechanism inspired by carry lookahead will still be
useful.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #3 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #2)
>
> Ok. The algorithm I proposed can still be used for scheduling loads/stores
> inside each batch and deciding which cache line to access each cycle, since
> I think the memory dependency matrix currently handles deciding which ops to
> execute each cycle by relying on a slow and simple FIFO algorithm. 

nono, it's a bitlevel matrix, capable of multi issue execution and resolving
all conflicts and dependencies in a single cycle.

the ordering is preserved by cascading bits being raised, just like in the
Register-style DMs.

so yes it has the same *characteristics* ad a FIFO bit is not a sequential
binary numbered array, it is *unary* numbering, and the bits (SR Latches)
specify "row X is in front of column Y".  actually, "row X is a memory LD
hazard on column Y"

> The queue
> in the algorithm I proposed can be the same HW as the memory dependency
> matrix, so it would end up as a hybrid algorithm.

i am very wary of making any kind of changes to the Dependency Matrices.  it
took months to get an understanding of them, enough to implement correctly.

using them as-is, as a component: no problem.  modifying them? no - not at this
stage, we simply haven't got time.

> The recursive summary mechanism inspired by carry lookahead will still be
> useful.

can you do this piece? if we spec it up. i can point you at the code it needs
to connect to (minerva L1 cache and LDSTCompUnit).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |http://bugs.libre-riscv.org
                   |                            |/show_bug.cgi?id=94

--- Comment #4 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #3)

> i am very wary of making any kind of changes to the Dependency Matrices.  it
> took months to get an understanding of them, enough to implement correctly.

(and it was 10 months ago.  sigh)

the load/store system is a *multi*-step process: there is the "normal"
(Register-FU and FU-FU hazard system, which takes care of the "usual"
register-based dependencies that all ALUs have including the Branch Unit),
*and* there is the inter-address LD/ST hazard Dependency Matrices.

the memory-function-unit matrices are augmented (differ from) the "normal"
register-style DMs in that they recognise 10 bits of the address as a way to
see if there was a conflict.  the logic being "overzealous".

you remember we discussed that last year, jacob, because 10 bits happens to hit
the 1 MEGABYTE boundary of Vulkan Texture blocks?

what i considered doing was having, instead of a straight 10-bit address-line
comparator, shifting that up by 4 bits and having a *bit-map* comparator for
the 4 LSBs.

in other words a byte LOAD would set 1 bit in the 16 bits, a half-word 2 bits,
and so on.  (actually to cover misaligned LOADs it would need to be a minimum
23 bits and/or split into *two* separate LOADs).

let us assume that the bitmap width is exactly the same as the cache line width
(16 bits representing 16 byte wide cache lines).

this bitmap - if filled by multiple LOADs - can have a popcount carried out on
it, and that tells us which "line" in the buffer has the highest number of
bytes to perform LOADs.

if the entire bitmap is all 1s, that is a full cache line of LOADs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NLnet milestone|---                         |NLnet.2019.02

--- Comment #5 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
hm.

misaligned is tricky.  am just reading POWER 3.0B, book III, 6.5.8 (page 1074),
it says that quad-word (lq, stq) is allowed to raise an "alignment" exception. 
there's several others as well (including when write-through is required or
cacheing is inhibited) however at least if we don't have to deal with 8-byte
misalignment that makes things a *lot* simpler.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #6 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
ok i think i have a data structure that will help.  it's a (very small) CAM,
with extra "things".

also it critically depends upon a pre-analysis of the LD/ST operation, breaking
it down from this form, where unary is defined as (1<<N):

FunctionUnit# Addr Length

into:

unary(FU#){0}  Addr[4:]   unary(Addr[0:3]     )  (start=0, mask=000bbbb)
unary(FU#){1}  Addr[4:]+1 unary(Addr[0:3]&mask)  (start=M, mask=bbb0000)

when a write is misaligned across a cache line, it results in the *second*
operation (unary(FU#){1}) being activated, where there would be two separate
and distinct LOADs / STOREs coming from *one* FunctionUnit.

the (start,mask) is so as to be able to shift and mask the data as it comes in
(or out) of the register.  this because when it's split into two, obviously you
have to know which portion of each split covers which part of the data
register.


let us assume that there are 4 LOAD/STORE Function Units.

there is a table (a CAM) with **EIGHT** rows, with an *unary* row-matching
by:

unary(FU#0){0}
unary(FU#0){1}
unary(FU#1){0}
unary(FU#1){1}
unary(FU#2){0}
unary(FU#2){1}
unary(FU#3){0}
unary(FU#3){1}

and in each column there is:

* MSBs of address - address[4:]
* *bitmask* of bytes covered by address[0:3]
* (up to) 128 bit data to be LD/ST'd

basically it's a very very small L0 cache, and because it's so small we can do
row-addressing in *unary*.

the key to resolving misalignment is that initial break-down of the "original"
LD/ST into a *PAIR* (plus a bitmask)

the bit that is a bit... awful is: there will be *four* Load-Store Units
creating and contending for up to *EIGHT* simultaneous reads/writes to this
CAM, worst-case (every single one of the operations crosses a cache-line
boundary)

that's far too much.

i think it is more reasonable to limit that to only four, however even a
four-way port-contention system is still one hell of a lot.

writing to this store/buffer/CAM: with four ports (four ways in CAM
terminology) any one LOAD/STORE will be able to write to two separate addresses
in the CAM

AND

up to *four* LOAD/STORE Units will be able to read/write to the *same* address
(same row).

the Memory itself will need individual byte-level enable lines.

then, the "flush" from this small CAM will be able to read/write entire lines
out to the L1 Cache.  each line will kiinda be like one single-entry FIFO.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #7 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
jacob, could i ask you the favour of pseudo-coding up the algorithm you
described?  bear in mind, the DMs will have taken care of separating
out all LOADs, all STOREs, and all AMOs into batches.

then we can do a comparison.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #8 from Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #7)
> jacob, could i ask you the favour of pseudo-coding up the algorithm you
> described?  bear in mind, the DMs will have taken care of separating
> out all LOADs, all STOREs, and all AMOs into batches.
> 
> then we can do a comparison.

Yeah, I can do that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #9 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
here's some links to existing code:

the MemFunctionUnits:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/scoreboard/memfu.py;hb=HEAD
this is the "top level" of the mem-matrices, so quite boring

still boring:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/scoreboard/mem_fu_matrix.py;hb=HEAD

ok *now* we are cooking:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/scoreboard/mem_dependence_cell.py;hb=HEAD

however this is really the key bit:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/scoreboard/addr_match.py;hb=HEAD

that is where you get a Pascal's Triangle of address-comparators
*only in the bottom 10 bits*.

the actual algorithm is described in Mitch's book chapters, 11.4.12
i'll attach screenshots for the diagrams in a second.

the code i would like to connect to is here:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/minerva/units/loadstore.py;hb=HEAD

CachedLoadStoreUnit

and here is where the LOADs/STOREs actually get fired off:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/experiment/compldst.py;h=206f44876b00b6c1d94716e624a03e81208120d4;hb=HEAD#l277

here, rather than have that code *arbitrarily* fire off the LD/ST, and *assume*
it will complete in a single cycle:

* stwd_mem_o must be PREVENTED from asserting UNTIL it is absolutely known that
the store will succeed
* load_mem_o must likewise be prevented from asserting until the load is known
to succeed

thus, it is perfectly fine for LOAD (or STORE) to take more than one cycle
(just like any other Function Unit).

yes, i know, if the LD/ST cannot complete (raises an exception) this is a type
of "result", which must result in the cancellation of the instruction (and all
downstream instructions), and an exception raised.

this is TODO however it is important that the information propagate back
through the LOAD/STORE buffer as a potential "result": "LOAD could not take
place due to exception".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #12 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
jacob i'm extending the LD/ST-address-conflict matrix to unary-overlap in the
last LSB 4 bits of the address.
an unary map (LD byte == 0b0000 0000 0000 0001, LD dword = 0b0000 0000 1111
1111)
then shifted up by the LSBs of the address, and split into two (if there is
a misalignment), means that two bit-level comparisons detect if the LDs overlap
in the last 4 bits of the address.

the current system already compares bits 4 thru 11 as an *binary* address.
by combining with the unary system it gives a full guaranteed detection
of overlap, based not just on the address but on the length of the operation.

however that leaves the top bits (11 thru 39 or 48, whatever we decide the VM
page size to be).

and that can be taken care of by a 4 or 8 entry mini-L1-cache-aka-LD/ST-buffer

however what is nice is that the mini-L1-cache can:

a) use the fact that the address-conflict matrix has *already* detected
(compared) addresses in bits 0-11

b) find those addresses which *are* equal (in bits 4 and above)

c) make sure the upper bits (11+) are also equal

d) use a merge of the *unary* maps of bits 0..3 to detect which LDs/STs are
covering the same L1 cache line, for all addresses detected in (b+c)

the unary map "merge" is where a popcount will tell us which is the best one to
put straight through to the L1 cache.  if all 16 bits (when merged) are set, we
know that's a full cache line.

the nice thing is, it's not actually that complicated.  we don't want to make
the *entire* L1 cache line this (hence a mini-pre-L1-cache) because it would
mean a popcount function on absolutely every single line of the L1 cache, and a
lot more besides.

plus, an "optimisation" is that for those address bits 4-11, well, because
we've already compared them, instead of doing the comparison again, we can use
the *conflict matrix row number* as a substitute.  i think.

i have to check that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #13 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
could everyone just have a look at this and see if i've got it right:
https://git.libre-riscv.org/?p=soc.git;a=blob;f=src/soc/scoreboard/addr_match.py;h=0312504eb818c5e77d8a85d3948f733663b34b2e;hb=182e4cd214022a8ce0a498c2ceeca223a282f329

the idea is as described: turn the last 4 bits of the address, plus the
length (1,2,4,8 bytes) into a bitmap, equal in length to a cache line
(actually, 2 cache lines) i.e. 2x 16-bits

then you do *unary* bit-wise compare on those, but *binary* compare on
the remainder of the address.

the tricky bit is that the roll-over (misaligned on a 16-byte boundary)
will need *three* compares:

* address-equal, compare 1st cache line (16 LSBs of the bitmap)
* 1st address PLUS ONE equal to *2nd* address:
  - compare 8 bytes of 1st address's SECOND cache line (bits 16-23) with
    first 8 bytes of 2nd address's FIRST cache line (bits 0-7)
* reverse - *2nd* address PLUS ONE equal to 1st address
  - likewise reverse on bitmap.

confusing as hell, hence why it needs checking.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #14 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
ok i have a pair of classes now:

* LDSTSplitter - this is designed to connect directly to LDSTCompUnit
* TwinPartialAddrBitmap - designed to be connected to LDSTSplitter

the idea is:

* misaligned LDs/STs that cross cache-line boundaries get "split" into
  a *pair* of LD/ST addresses plus corresponding "byte-map".

* these "byte-maps" are based on the bottom LSBs of the address *and*
  the length (byte-LD = len=1 ==> 0b1, halfword-LD = len=2 ==> 0b11
  which is then *SHIFTED UP* by the bottom LSBs

* any byte-map that goes over a cache line results in the SECOND
  of the two addresses "activating" from the LDSTSplitter

* key thing to note: the bytemaps *already encode* the position in the
  L1 cache, and can be used directly as "byte read/write-enable" lines on
  the underlying Memory.  no further shifting or offsetting is required
  at the Cache: the bytemaps can be wired *directly* into nmigen Memory
  as byte-enables.

* TwinPartialAddrBitmap takes *pairs* of addresses (plus length bytemaps)
  and identifies which addresses are clashing.  there are extra addresses
  included (actually, excluded) because only the LSBs are checked: this
  is fine.


important to note: LDSTSplitter has clock-synchronous signalling with
combinatorial bypass on it.  in other words, if the downstream LDs/STs
signal that they are ready immediately, LDSTSplitter will *also* respond
immediately (in that same clock cycle).  however if one of the LDs/STs
is not ready yet (cache miss for example) then LDSTSplitter will take
note of that and wait until the downstream sources set their "valid"
flag(s).

errors are simply merged.  this is still TODO properly.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #15 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
https://ascslab.org/research/briscv/downloads.html

i wonder... i wonder if it would work if we had multiple L1 caches,
with an N-way crossbar on each (routing to be organised by binary
address bits [4:4+log2(N)-1]) then have a L2 cache underneath that?

or, just actually have multiple L1 caches with a coherent L2 cache
underneath?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #16 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
http://sadve.cs.illinois.edu/Publications/isca00.pdf

this paper describes how to partition a cache so that media workloads
do not completely trash the L1 cache.  we will almost certainly need
to implement this because GPU workloads are READ-PROCESS-WRITE, and
even having the data in the L1 cache *at all* is completely pointless
as it's never going to be accessed more than once.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #17 from Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> ---
If we're having multiple L1 caches, we should implement them to appear as if
there is a single L1 cache -- no extra instructions are needed to flush one
cache before accessing the other, this greatly simplifies the programming model
and Kazan currently depends on the memory having a normal programming model (no
cache flushes required for an operation to be visible on the same thread).

For GPU workloads, they still have some accesses (the majority for a tiled
architecture -- what Kazan is) that benefit from a L1 cache. basically, it
splits the screen into small squares/rectangles (bins) and accumulates a list
of rendering operations (binning) then for each square/rectangle (bin) it
renders all the operations inside it in sequence, so the pixels are repeatedly
stored and loaded until that bin is done rendering.

Texture access also benefits from a cache since nearby pixels are accessed
together and often the accesses are overlapping.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #18 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #17)
> If we're having multiple L1 caches, we should implement them to appear as if
> there is a single L1 cache -- no extra instructions are needed to flush one
> cache before accessing the other,


yes, agreed.  it appears, from the advice on comp.arch, that it is normal to
"stripe" the L1 cache, using e.g. bit 4 of the address (when using 128 bit
cache lines) to select odd or even halves.

if there are two separate LD/ST buffers, one for each half, this doubles the
bestcase data throughput at a cost of 40% misses in the general case (due to
each half being, duh, half the size).

however yes when it comes to flushing the cache these halves can, must and will
appear to be coherent as if they were a single L1 cache.


> For GPU workloads, they still have some accesses (the majority for a tiled
> architecture -- what Kazan is) that benefit from a L1 cache. basically, it
> splits the screen into small squares/rectangles (bins) and accumulates a
> list of rendering operations (binning) then for each square/rectangle (bin)
> it renders all the operations inside it in sequence, so the pixels are
> repeatedly stored and loaded until that bin is done rendering.
> 
> Texture access also benefits from a cache since nearby pixels are accessed
> together and often the accesses are overlapping.

ok.

ok so those 1 MB texture buffers you mentioned before are accessed multiple
times in near-succession?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev

[libre-riscv-dev] [Bug 216] LOAD STORE buffer needed

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugs.libre-riscv.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216

--- Comment #19 from Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #18)
> (In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #17)
> > For GPU workloads, they still have some accesses (the majority for a tiled
> > architecture -- what Kazan is) that benefit from a L1 cache. basically, it
> > splits the screen into small squares/rectangles (bins) and accumulates a
> > list of rendering operations (binning) then for each square/rectangle (bin)
> > it renders all the operations inside it in sequence, so the pixels are
> > repeatedly stored and loaded until that bin is done rendering.
> > 
> > Texture access also benefits from a cache since nearby pixels are accessed
> > together and often the accesses are overlapping.
> 
> ok.
> 
> ok so those 1 MB texture buffers you mentioned before are accessed multiple
> times in near-succession?

Yes. Though several different textures can be accessed in an interleaved
fashion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
libre-riscv-dev mailing list
libre-riscv-dev@lists.libre-riscv.org
http://lists.libre-riscv.org/mailman/listinfo/libre-riscv-dev