Hi Jason,

Have you had the chance to push test replacements?

-Alec

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Alec Roelke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for your help on this.  If there's anything I can do to help, let
> me know.
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Jason Lowe-Power <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm going to push a replacement for these tests next week. Hopefully that
>> will fix things.
>>
>> I'll *try* to test things on zizzer, but it's hard since I wasn't around
>> when it was set up, and I don't have all of the necessary permissions. We
>> need to move away from zizzer for testing. We're working on it, but it's
>> slow going.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:58 AM Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > To follow up, any binaries checked into the gem5 repository are not
>> used by
>> > the regressions. The M5_PATH variable isn't set, so it looks for
>> binaries
>> > in a default location which is what I have in my earlier email. If you
>> want
>> > to change what it's using for hello world, somebody with appropriate
>> access
>> > will need to replace that binary on zizzer.
>> >
>> > Gabe
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Alec Roelke <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sorry, I meant the hello-world binary, not gem5 itself.  The one
>> that's
>> > > included along with the rest of the test binaries is the same as what
>> I
>> > > have on my system, but different than what the regression server is
>> > > running.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Nope, and I wasn't aware there was a binary repository either.
>> > > >
>> > > > Gabe
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sep 6, 2017 11:02 AM, "Alec Roelke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > So the problem must be that the binary is the wrong version.  I
>> just
>> > > > cloned
>> > > > > a new copy of gem5 and the binary is the same as what I had in my
>> > first
>> > > > > copy.  Are you sure the one on the regression server is
>> up-to-date?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected]
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Note that in your version, there's a segment that starts at file
>> > > offset
>> > > > > 0,
>> > > > > > hence including the program header which starts at offset 64.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Gabe
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Alec Roelke <[email protected]
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > When I run readelf on my copy of
>> > > > > > > tests/test-progs/hello/bin/riscv/linux/hello, this is the
>> output
>> > I
>> > > > > get:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Elf file type is EXEC (Executable file)
>> > > > > > > > Entry point 0x102a4
>> > > > > > > > There are 5 program headers, starting at offset 64
>> > > > > > > > Program Headers:
>> > > > > > > >   Type           Offset             VirtAddr
>>  PhysAddr
>> > > > > > > >                  FileSiz            MemSiz
>> Flags
>> > > > Align
>> > > > > > > >   LOAD           0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000010000
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000010000
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000068cc3 0x0000000000068cc3  R E
>> > > 1000
>> > > > > > > >   LOAD           0x0000000000068f50 0x0000000000079f50
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000079f50
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000001bf8 0x0000000000003320  RW
>> > >  1000
>> > > > > > > >   NOTE           0x0000000000000158 0x0000000000010158
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000010158
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000000020 0x0000000000000020  R
>> > 4
>> > > > > > > >   TLS            0x0000000000068f50 0x0000000000079f50
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000079f50
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000000020 0x0000000000000050  R
>> > 8
>> > > > > > > >   GNU_RELRO      0x0000000000068f50 0x0000000000079f50
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000079f50
>> > > > > > > >                  0x00000000000000b0 0x00000000000000b0  R
>> > 1
>> > > > > > > >  Section to Segment mapping:
>> > > > > > > >   Segment Sections...
>> > > > > > > >    00     .note.ABI-tag .text __libc_freeres_fn
>> > > > > > __libc_thread_freeres_fn
>> > > > > > > > .rodata __libc_subfreeres __libc_IO_vtables __libc_atexit
>> > > > > > > > __libc_thread_subfreeres .eh_frame .gcc_except_table
>> > > > > > > >    01     .tdata .preinit_array .init_array .fini_array .
>> > > > data.rel.ro
>> > > > > > > > .data .got .sdata .sbss .bss __libc_freeres_ptrs
>> > > > > > > >    02     .note.ABI-tag
>> > > > > > > >    03     .tdata .tbss
>> > > > > > > >    04     .tdata .preinit_array .init_array .fini_array .
>> > > > data.rel.ro
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > This is different than what you got, but the program headers
>> > still
>> > > > seem
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > start at offset 64.  The md5sum of my version of hello is
>> this:
>> > > > > > > md5sum riscv/linux/hello
>> > > > > > > *7ac13479c40f2c9e59572dd6ef79db4d*  riscv/linux/hello
>> > > > > > > It doesn't seem like version of hello that's on the server is
>> the
>> > > > same
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > > the one I have locally, although my git seems to think
>> > everything I
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > up-to-date.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > As an aside, when I run readelf on
>> > > > > > > tests/test-progs/hello/bin/x86/linux/hello, I get this:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Elf file type is EXEC (Executable file)
>> > > > > > > > Entry point 0x400190
>> > > > > > > > There are 5 program headers, starting at offset 64
>> > > > > > > > Program Headers:
>> > > > > > > >   Type           Offset             VirtAddr
>>  PhysAddr
>> > > > > > > >                  FileSiz            MemSiz
>> Flags
>> > > > Align
>> > > > > > > >   LOAD           0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000400000
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000400000
>> > > > > > > >                  0x000000000007e9c0 0x000000000007e9c0  R E
>> > > > 100000
>> > > > > > > >   LOAD           0x000000000007f000 0x000000000057f000
>> > > > > > 0x000000000057f000
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000002468 0x00000000000147d0  RW
>> > > >  100000
>> > > > > > > >   NOTE           0x0000000000000158 0x0000000000400158
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000400158
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000000020 0x0000000000000020  R
>> > 4
>> > > > > > > >   GNU_STACK      0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000000000
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000  RW
>> >  8
>> > > > > > > >   LOOS+5041580   0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000000000
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000
>> >  8
>> > > > > > > >  Section to Segment mapping:
>> > > > > > > >   Segment Sections...
>> > > > > > > >    00     .note.ABI-tag .init .text __libc_freeres_fn .fini
>> > > .rodata
>> > > > > > > > __libc_atexit __libc_subfreeres .eh_frame .gcc_except_table
>> > > > > > > >    01     .ctors .dtors .jcr .data.rel.ro .got .got.plt
>> .data
>> > > .bss
>> > > > > > > > __libc_freeres_ptrs
>> > > > > > > >    02     .note.ABI-tag
>> > > > > > > >    03
>> > > > > > > >    04
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > This has a different entry point and segments, but its program
>> > > > headers
>> > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > start at offset 64.  But this problem doesn't occur for x86
>> > > programs.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Gabe Black <
>> > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The test scripts have nothing to do with it. In ELF files,
>> the
>> > > > > program
>> > > > > > > > header table exists somewhere in the image defined by an
>> > offset.
>> > > > That
>> > > > > > > > offset could (and usually does) put it in a region which is
>> > also
>> > > > part
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > segment which an ELF loader would put into memory so that
>> the
>> > > > > > > > program/dynamic loader/etc. can look at it at run time.
>> gem5's
>> > > ELF
>> > > > > > loader
>> > > > > > > > code compares the offset of the header table against the
>> > segments
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > > knows
>> > > > > > > > about to see if they overlap, and if they do uses the
>> virtual
>> > > > address
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > the segment to figure out the virtual address of the header
>> > table
>> > > > as
>> > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > been loaded into memory. If the header table doesn't overlap
>> > with
>> > > > any
>> > > > > > > > segment, it records its address as 0. The RISCV process
>> loader
>> > > code
>> > > > > > > > attempts to read out the program header by using that
>> address.
>> > > > > Because
>> > > > > > 0
>> > > > > > > > isn't mapped to anything, it blows up.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > $ readelf -l /dist/m5/regression/test-
>> > > progs/hello/bin/riscv/linux/
>> > > > > > hello
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Elf file type is EXEC (Executable file)
>> > > > > > > > Entry point 0x10000
>> > > > > > > > There are 1 program headers, starting at offset 64
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Program Headers:
>> > > > > > > >   Type           Offset             VirtAddr
>>  PhysAddr
>> > > > > > > >                  FileSiz            MemSiz
>> Flags
>> > > > Align
>> > > > > > > >   LOAD           0x0000000000001000 0x0000000000010000
>> > > > > > 0x0000000000010000
>> > > > > > > >                  0x0000000000004b80 0x0000000000004c10  RWE
>> > > 1000
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >  Section to Segment mapping:
>> > > > > > > >   Segment Sections...
>> > > > > > > >    00     .text .rodata .init_array .fini_array .eh_frame
>> .jcr
>> > > > .data
>> > > > > > > .sdata
>> > > > > > > > .sbss .bss
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > $ md5sum /dist/m5/regression/test-progs
>> /hello/bin/riscv/linux/
>> > > > hello
>> > > > > > > > f6a3aabca242749aecb543fe95abfa73
>> > > > > > > >  /dist/m5/regression/test-progs/hello/bin/riscv/linux/hello
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Alec Roelke <
>> > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > My understanding was that gem5 uses libelf to read the
>> > segments
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > program, which correctly identifies the program header
>> table,
>> > > > entry
>> > > > > > > > point,
>> > > > > > > > > and data, text, and bss segments (among other things).
>> Are
>> > you
>> > > > > > saying
>> > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > the test scripts cause it to do something different?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Gabe Black <
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > The loader is using the readBlob function of the SE
>> > > translating
>> > > > > > port
>> > > > > > > > > proxy
>> > > > > > > > > > which converts a virtual address into a physical one
>> before
>> > > > > sending
>> > > > > > > out
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > request. It's being fed the address 0, and that, as you
>> > might
>> > > > > > expect,
>> > > > > > > > > > doesn't map to anything. It gets that address from where
>> > the
>> > > > ELF
>> > > > > > > loader
>> > > > > > > > > > tells it the ELF program header table is. The reason it
>> > > thinks
>> > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > > address 0 is that it didn't actually find an address for
>> > it,
>> > > > > since
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > program header isn't mapped into the only loadable
>> segment.
>> > > > That
>> > > > > > > > segment
>> > > > > > > > > > starts at file offset 0x1000, but the ELF program header
>> > > starts
>> > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > offset
>> > > > > > > > > > 64 (maybe in hex?). That's a little unusual because in
>> my
>> > > > > > experience
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > linker likes to put the headers in a loadable segment,
>> but
>> > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > what's
>> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > zizzer right now.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > So basically, I would totally expect it to fail, and I'm
>> > > > > surprised
>> > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > works for you guys at all unless you're using binaries
>> > which
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > and have the headers within the loadable segment. I
>> looked
>> > > > > > > specifically
>> > > > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > > hello world.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Gabe
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jason Lowe-Power <
>> > > > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alec,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > The binaries seem to be up-to-date. They are what is
>> in
>> > the
>> > > > > gem5
>> > > > > > > repo
>> > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > Sept. 3. The error is "fatal: readBlob(0x0, ...)
>> failed".
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > If I run the test without the test script, it works.
>> If I
>> > > run
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > test
>> > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > my local machine it works. The only thing that's
>> failing
>> > is
>> > > > > > running
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > test with the test scripts on zizzer.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Anyone else have an idea?
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Jason
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:55 PM Jason Lowe-Power <
>> > > > > > > > [email protected]>
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure. I can look into it, but I'm not sure
>> when
>> > > > I'll
>> > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > chance. I'll try to do it in the next week or so.
>> If I
>> > > > > haven't
>> > > > > > > > gotten
>> > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > by 9/11, send me another email reminder ;).
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Jason
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 11:24 AM Alec Roelke <
>> > > > > > [email protected]
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Everyone,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> I've noticed that all of the RISC-V regression
>> tests
>> > > have
>> > > > > been
>> > > > > > > > > failing
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> every day.  They all pass when I run them on my
>> > machine
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > latest
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> gem5.  Is the machine running the regressions
>> running
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > correct
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> binaries?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> Alec Roelke
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > > > > > > >> 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
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > > > > 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
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > > 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
>> > > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to