[ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Correlation and BIRD Update - comments

  • From: "Muranyi, Arpad" <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "IBIS-ATM" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:03:12 -0700

Scott,

In short, I like your suggestion.  It is more
along the lines of my thinking.  But what do
I know?...   :-)

Thanks,

Arpad
==============================================

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott McMorrow [mailto:scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:58 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad
Cc: IBIS-ATM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Correlation and BIRD Update - 
comments

Guys,

As an outside observer, with no stake in this, I'd highly suggest that 
y'all enlist the aid of an expert in C++ programming, and get an 
unbiased opinion on what the best method for holding open a block of 
memory for Get_Wave is.  From my perspective, it seems to me that the 
calling program should be responsible for all persistent memory needs, 
and that any called routine should be responsible only for transient 
memory requirements, which are flushed upon return.  A possible solution 
to the problem would be to have a call whereby Get_Wave returns it's 
memory requirements.  Once that is established, the main program passes 
a pointer to the allocated block of memory.

But what do I know?

Scott


Scott McMorrow
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
121 North River Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
(401) 284-1827 Business
(401) 284-1840 Fax

http://www.teraspeed.com

Teraspeed® is the registered service mark of
Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC



Muranyi, Arpad wrote:
> Todd,
>
> Thank you for your reply.  I would very much like to take the challenge
> in the last sentence of your email to write up something on memory
> management for discussion, but I have to admit that I can probably not
> claim much more C programming experience than you do.  So I can only
> make sketchy suggestions.
>
> I looked at the memory management of the SiSoft example Tx to see how
> it allocates memory for various purposes.  I don't claim yet that I
> understand each malloc statement to the fullest detail, but from what
> I can tell now, the Init function does NOT allocate the memory for
> GetWave for the sliding window algorithm.  Please correct me if I am
> wrong, but to me it seems that GetWave does the memory allocation for
> that on its own.
>
> So given the conclusions from my previous message, that with the current
> understanding the output of Init is passed to GetWave through the
> function arguments (and not through persistent memory as previously
> done), AND this observation about GetWave allocating its own memory
> for the sliding window algorithm, it SEEMS that we do NOT NEED to
> rely on persistent memory to achieve the tasks of these functions.
>
> I don't think we have to put preventive measures into the spec against
> using persistent memory, but I would like to have an option to be
> able to write (simpler?) models without it.
>
> I think we are very close to be able to do that.  If we had another
> *AMI_parameters_in argument for GetWave, it seems that it could be
> done without any further changes.
>
> And what if we distributed two versions of the same example Tx model
> then?  One that uses no persistent memory and another which does?
>
> So, in summary, both functions return their results in place.  (This
> is true for either method, including *clock_times, interesting comment
> this morning, Mike).  This ensures that the caller can free the memory
> used for the input and output.  The init function takes care of the
> parameter tree parsing, and leaves the results in the
> **AMI_parameters_out
> argument, which can be passed into the GetWave function through the
> proposed *AMI_parameters_in argument when no persistent memory is set
> up by Init.  (This could be done through the persistent memory also
> if one is so inclined, but wouldn't have to be done that way).
>
> GetWave would allocate its own memory for the sliding window and
> pass its address to the caller so that at the end it can be freed
> by the caller (or passed on by the caller to AMI_close to be freed
> up by AMI_close) through the existing *AMI_memory argument.  If
> persistent memory is set up by Init, its **AMI_memory_handle could
> be used for this as well as other persistent memory stuff.  (I
> hope my understanding is correct on this).
>
> I know this may have some flaws due to my limited C knowledge, but
> I hope that we can come up with a working model somewhere along
> these lines to support both methods.  Programming experts, please
> chime in with your comments.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arpad
> ====================================================================
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Todd Westerhoff
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:39 PM
> To: 'IBIS-ATM'
> Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: IBIS-AMI Correlation and BIRD Update -
> comments
>
> Arpad,
>
> You've made the interesting observation that the convolution performed
> by the EDA tool when
> "Use_Init_Output = True" is a close parallel to the convolution
> performed by the original SiSoft TX
> model based on SiSoft's original interpretation of the TX AMI_Getwave
> input waveform.  There's more
> than a bit of serendipity in that ... it's a point that I didn't try to
> make explicitly in the
> presentation on Tuesday, partly because it's subtle, and partly because
> it relies on intimate
> knowledge of the reference model not that many people have.
>
> The moral of the story is - convolution is convolution.  Whether it's
> done by the EDA tool or inside
> the model's AMI_Getwave call, the answer should the same - and that is,
> in fact, what we saw.
>
> Thanks for your suggestions on clarifications for the BIRD - that's the
> next thing on my plate, and
> I'll try to incorporate them.
>
> As far as the persistent memory discussion goes - I don't think I'm a
> good judge for the merits of
> one technical implementation or another.  The existing spec allows
> AMI_Init to allocate whatever
> amount of memory it wants based on the way the model developer has
> written AMI_Getwave and the block
> size in question.  There are other ways to allocate memory, as you point
> out, but I'm not sure if it
> ends up being simpler than what we have now, or just different.  I don't
> claim to be a competent "C"
> programmer, nor do I play one on TV.  I'm going to leave comments on
> different styles of memory
> allocation to others who know more than I do.
>
> I think we've come to the point where we need to be talking about a
> specific memory management
> scheme and how it compares to what we have now.  Do you want to write
> something up for discussion?
>
> Todd.
>
> Todd Westerhoff
> VP, Software Products
> SiSoft
> 6 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250
> Maynard, MA 01754
> (978) 461-0449 x24
> twesterh@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.sisoft.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
> IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
> To unsubscribe send an email:
>   To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>   Subject: unsubscribe
>
> .
>
>   
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website  :  http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector:  //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
  To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: unsubscribe

Other related posts: