Re: [m5-users] Difference between using hg and mq
changes to src/mem files for energy/delay calculations changes to configs/common/* to allow modified configurations in FS mode new power files in src/power to integrate wattch Currently I can do 'hg view' to see a list of all changes as an ADG and then rollback if I want using 'hg revert' or commit new changes using 'hg commit'. Do you think mq would be better? - Original Message - From: nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: M5 users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [m5-users] Difference between using hg and mq Well, all of the m5 developers use mq. What sorts of changes are you making? On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Sujay Phadke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nate, Thanks for replying. Well for the present I am using hg itself and making my own changes to the source. I commit them using hg commit. I have a custom emacs merge file which makes merging easy in case the source repo changes. I think this works good for now. I do fold the changes back using hg. I really didnt hear back from anyone about their experience so I dont know if taking the mq approach is better. - Sujay - Original Message - From: nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: M5 users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [m5-users] Difference between using hg and mq Did you get anywhere with this? You should really look at the mercurial documentation. The choice depends on the usage. If you're planning on making massive changes across the board and don't plan to integrate them, then hg itself probably makes sense. If you want to fold your changes back into the tree eventually as patches, or you have smallish changes that you'd like to benefit from our improvements, mq probably makes the most sense. If you're creating completely new models, then using EXTRAS with stuff in your own repository is probably the way to go. We'd encourage people to try to fold stuff back into M5 as we do, so we lean towards mq which is probably the best way to go for that. I have HP stuff that is private to HP that I do with a separate repository and the EXTRAS thing. Nate On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Sujay Phadke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I read the M5 repo documentation and the hgbook on using hg and mq. I am confused between which approach I should be using for making my own changes to m5-stable. One way is to make my changes and use the hg commit. I can pull changes to the source using hg fetch and it does a 3-way merge when required. The other way is to use the 'q' commands - qinit, qnew, qrefresh, etc. Could someone elaborate whats the best way to go about it? Thanks, Sujay ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
Re: [m5-users] Difference between using hg and mq
I think we would like to see those changes in m5 so MQ might be better. With MQ you can still use hg view to see a list of all the changes, I'm not sure that hg revert will work but you should be careful about using it anyway, and you can commit changes in HQ with hgqcommit. Ali On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:05 AM, Sujay Phadke wrote: changes to src/mem files for energy/delay calculations changes to configs/common/* to allow modified configurations in FS mode new power files in src/power to integrate wattch Currently I can do 'hg view' to see a list of all changes as an ADG and then rollback if I want using 'hg revert' or commit new changes using 'hg commit'. Do you think mq would be better? - Original Message - From: nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: M5 users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [m5-users] Difference between using hg and mq Well, all of the m5 developers use mq. What sorts of changes are you making? On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Sujay Phadke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Nate, Thanks for replying. Well for the present I am using hg itself and making my own changes to the source. I commit them using hg commit. I have a custom emacs merge file which makes merging easy in case the source repo changes. I think this works good for now. I do fold the changes back using hg. I really didnt hear back from anyone about their experience so I dont know if taking the mq approach is better. - Sujay - Original Message - From: nathan binkert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: M5 users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [m5-users] Difference between using hg and mq Did you get anywhere with this? You should really look at the mercurial documentation. The choice depends on the usage. If you're planning on making massive changes across the board and don't plan to integrate them, then hg itself probably makes sense. If you want to fold your changes back into the tree eventually as patches, or you have smallish changes that you'd like to benefit from our improvements, mq probably makes the most sense. If you're creating completely new models, then using EXTRAS with stuff in your own repository is probably the way to go. We'd encourage people to try to fold stuff back into M5 as we do, so we lean towards mq which is probably the best way to go for that. I have HP stuff that is private to HP that I do with a separate repository and the EXTRAS thing. Nate On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Sujay Phadke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I read the M5 repo documentation and the hgbook on using hg and mq. I am confused between which approach I should be using for making my own changes to m5-stable. One way is to make my changes and use the hg commit. I can pull changes to the source using hg fetch and it does a 3- way merge when required. The other way is to use the 'q' commands - qinit, qnew, qrefresh, etc. Could someone elaborate whats the best way to go about it? Thanks, Sujay ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
[m5-users] Instruction counts
Hi, I am looking at instruction counts that are output in m5stats.txt for a couple simulations that I have run. I am using ALPHA_FS with the detailed core, and I am confused about the values that are output. In m5stats.txt, the value 'sim_insts' claims to the the number of instructions simulated. On further inspection, each of the cores also has commit statistics that include 'commit.COM:count', 'commit.commitCommittedInsts', 'committedInsts' and 'committedInsts_total'. I tried tracing through the code where these counters are updated, and some of them seem to be redundant. The problem that I am having is that when I sum any of these commit statistics over the set of cores, none of them are equal to 'sim_insts'. In fact, the difference is usually 5-10x. I am hoping someone could shed some light on the discrepency, and let me know the purpose of all these seemingly redundant counters. Thanks, Joel ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
[m5-users] about prefetch patches
Hi all: I meet prefetch error in the full system simulation. Does anybody know where I can find the prefetch patches, which help to correct prefetch problems. thanks Gary Steve Reinhardt wrote: There are some problems with the prefetching support in the new memory system... basically it did not get tested after the rewrite. There were some patches posted to the mailing list recently that I will be pushing to the development repository soon. Steve On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Gary Chai [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all: I want to take a look at the result of prefetch, so I add two lines in the configs/example/fs.py and keep others same. if options.l2cache: test_sys.l2 = L2Cache(size = '2MB') test_sys.tol2bus = Bus() test_sys.l2.cpu_side = test_sys.tol2bus.port test_sys.l2.mem_side = test_sys.membus.port test_sys.l2.prefetch_policy = 'tagged' by me test_sys.l2.prefetch_miss = 'true' by me Then the simulation is aborted and the following is the error. M5 compiled Jun 9 2008 21:51:22 M5 started Mon Jul 21 13:24:26 2008 M5 executing on seasmile-pc command line: /home/m5/m5-2.0b5/build/ALPHA_FS/m5.debug -d result2 /home/m5/m5-2.0b5/configs/example/fs.py -t --caches -n 1 --l2cache -b hello Global frequency set at 1 ticks per second warn: kernel located at: /dist/m5/system/binaries/vmlinux 0: system.tsunami.io.rtc: Real-time clock set to Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 2009 Listening for system connection on port 3456 0: system.remote_gdb.listener: listening for remote gdb #0 on port 7000 REAL SIMULATION warn: Entering event queue @ 0. Starting simulation... m5.debug: build/ALPHA_FS/mem/cache/base.hh:471: void BaseCache::deassertMemSideBusRequest(BaseCache::RequestCause): Assertion `false' failed. Program aborted at cycle 12851847000 Aborted Can you help me find the reason? Thanks Gary ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org mailto:m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users ___ m5-users mailing list m5-users@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
