[Gems-users] About ordered virtual networks


Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:43:50 +0100
From: Marco Solinas <marco.solinas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Gems-users] About ordered virtual networks
Hi all,

when I declare a virtual network as "ordered" in my SLICC protocol, does this imply that the destination node receives the messages in the same sequence the sender issues them, doesn't matter the physical path they follow? (I mean: is it an end-to-end ordering, or just a switch-to-switch ordering - as some actual implementations of this mechanism ensure? The latter case implies that the path is important).

Another question: some implementations of the coherence protocols released with GEMS (my version is 1.4) have an ordered "Forward Network" (this is the case of SMP protocols, for example the MOSI_SMP_directory_1level), but other protocols use an unordered "Forward Network" (this is the case of CMP protocols, for example MOESI_CMP_directory). Is there a particular reason for this, or it is just a protocol-dependent characteristic?

Thank you for your support.
Regards,
Marco
[← Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread→]