Probably not mislabeled, just unfortunately easy to misinterpret.
Compile time and run time are when the SE/FS decision is made, not how
long it takes to compile or run.
Gabe
Quoting Ali Saidi <[email protected]>:
Could you decode this a little bit? I think that the numbers are mislabeled?
Thanks,
Ali
On Jan 18, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Gabe Black wrote:
ARM_FS/tests/opt/long/10.linux-boot/arm/linux/realview-o3/
compile time:
host_seconds
840.68 # Real time elapsed on the host
run time:
host_seconds
840.02 # Real time elapsed on the host
ARM_FS/tests/opt/long/10.linux-boot/arm/linux/realview-o3/
compile time:
host_seconds
34.50 # Real time elapsed on the host
run time:
host_seconds
33.11 # Real time elapsed on the host
build/X86_SE/tests/opt/long/70.twolf/x86/linux/simple-atomic/
compile time:
host_seconds
87.55 # Real time elapsed on the host
host_seconds
93.78 # Real time elapsed on the host
run time:
host_seconds
103.96 # Real time elapsed on the host
host_seconds
100.22 # Real time elapsed on the host
One thing which surprised me is that choosing SE/FS mode at runtime
performed better than choosing it at compile time on ARM_FS, although
there was more overhead on X86_SE. I'm not really sure why that's
happening. It could be an SE vs. FS thing somehow.
Gabe
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
