On 12/01/11 19:19, Steve Reinhardt wrote: > (switching to email since this is getting long) > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/922/ > > > On December 1st, 2011, 10:40 a.m., *Andreas Hansson* wrote: > > src/sim/stat_control.cc > > <http://reviews.m5sim.org/r/922/diff/1/?file=15840#file15840line56> > (Diff revision 1) > > > > 56 > > Stats::Value simCurTicks; > > How about calling it simTotTicks or simAbsTicks? (Total or > Absolute that is) > > On December 1st, 2011, 11:48 a.m., *Korey Sewell* wrote: > > I think that the "sim_insts" stat is a persistent one whereas the > "sim_ticks" stat is not persistent. > > That typically causes a lot of confusion. > > I would suggest that we migrate to making "sim_ticks" persistent > and then using the simCurTicks to match the reset/checkpointed stat value. > > On December 1st, 2011, 11:53 a.m., *Nathan Binkert* wrote: > > I don't have much to say on specific names, but if we want to > avoid confusion, we should have unambiguous names. like sim_insts and > sim_insts_non_reset. We should be making it very clear what if any stats are > unaffected by reset() or are restored from a checkpoint. > > My vote would be to make sim_ticks persistent like sim_insts and then add > new stats like interval_ticks and interval_insts or sim_ticks_since_reset and > sim_insts_since_reset. > > > I believe all the sim_* stats are intended to reflect the "simulation" > itself, so things like sim_insts and sim_ticks should reflect the > number of instructions and ticks simulated in the current run (IMO). > > I can see where printing out the final tick value could be useful, but > I think it would be less ambiguous if we didn't use 'sim_' in the name > at all. I'd prefer something like absolute_tick or final_tick. I > particularly like not making it plural, since that implies a count of > ticks, and what we're really recording is just a timestamp and not a > tick count. Sort of like asking what the simulation time was, and > answering "11:05 AM" rather than "2 hours". > > Also, as Nate points out, there are two possibly different > characteristics a stat can have: > a. is it saved and restored with checkpoints > b. is it cleared on an explicit stats reset > > Are these characteristics coupled? Do we currently have stats that do > one but not the other? I'm guessing that right now we don't have any > stats that are saved and restored with checkpoints (this one we're > discussing would be the first, yes?), but we may have some that don't > get cleared on reset (like sim_ticks, I would expect). I just want to > make sure we're not conflating the two improperly in our discussion. > > Steve >
i almost agree on the sim_* needing to be since reset, but you can reset stats without restoring from a checkpoint. For instance, you could reset after the warmup. I would consider that part of the simulation, but it wouldn't be included in the stats. Gabe _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
