OK that makes sense, because I remember going through similar conversations/situations a while back.
What probably happened was in fixing the EIO traces for the simple CPU you probably doubled up the instruction counts.... I thought we didnt care aboue EIO traces anymore? Either way, we probably should be keeping a different variable/count for the EIO compatibility because it seems to me that correct and EIO arent synonymous... On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Gabe Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is something I fixed for the simple CPU but not for the > o3 (or maybe vice versa?). I don't remember the details either. One > thing to be careful of is to not break the EIO traces which partially > depend on instruction count. > > Gabe > > > > Korey Sewell wrote: > > Would that be the SimpleCPU double-counting? That kind of rings a bell > > for me too. I think they might double-count on a fault or a system > > call??? > > > > And now that I look at it, I think you're right. For hello-world, the > > O3CPU executes 5623 instructions. For SimpleCPU, it executes 5641 > > instructions. They are 17 system calls in the hello-world app AND I am > > assuming there is 1 fault to extend the stack (I didnt see a stat that > > records the # of faults per CPU. Shouldn't we have something like > > that?). So that makes up for the 18 instruction difference in that > > case. > > > > Hopefully fixing those double-counts (again?), will fix all of them. > > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Steve Reinhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> I remember there being an issue previously about double-counting > >> instructions that fault, but I thought we had agreed that that > >> shouldn't happen and then fixed it. So I don't know if my memory is > >> faulty and we didn't change that, or if we did but it's back, or if > >> it's a different issue. But that's what rings a bell on this for me. > >> > >> One of the problems with the SPEC regressions in general (and the O3 > >> ones in particular) is that they're SLOOOW... so it takes forever to > >> update the reference stats when you make a change. In fact I'm in the > >> middle of that now. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Korey Sewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > I may have known the answer to this once (or maybe I'm just dreaming), > >> > but I am currently a bit mind-boggled to why O3 has a different number > >> > of sim_insts (simulated instructions) then the SimpleCPUs for the same > >> > workloads. > >> > > >> > Have the regressions not been updated? Have stats got messed up along > >> > the way??? > >> > The stdout and stderr outputs seem the same regardless of CPU so maybe > >> > this is just a stat thing. > >> > > >> > I detected this by grep'ing for "sim_inst" in the regressions (tests) > >> > directory long and quick folders. Here are a couple of notable > >> > discrepancies: > >> > quick/00.hello/ref/alpha/linux/o3-timing/m5stats.txt:20:sim_insts > >> > 5623 # Number > >> > of instructions simulated > >> > quick/00.hello/ref/alpha/linux/simple-atomic/m5stats.txt:8:sim_insts > >> > 5641 # > >> > Number of instructions simulated > >> > quick/00.hello/ref/alpha/linux/simple-timing/m5stats.txt:8:sim_insts > >> > 5641 # > >> > Number of instructions simulated > >> > > >> > long/30.eon/ref/alpha/tru64/o3-timing/m5stats.txt:20:sim_insts > >> > 375574819 # Number of > >> > instructions simulated > >> > long/30.eon/ref/alpha/tru64/simple-atomic/m5stats.txt:8:sim_insts > >> > 398664595 # Number > >> > of instructions simulated > >> > long/30.eon/ref/alpha/tru64/simple-timing/m5stats.txt:8:sim_insts > >> > 398664609 # Number > >> > of instructions simulated > >> > > >> > long/60.bzip2/ref/alpha/tru64/o3-timing/m5stats.txt:20:sim_insts > >> > 1736043781 # Number > >> > of instructions simulated > >> > long/60.bzip2/ref/alpha/tru64/simple-atomic/m5stats.txt:8:sim_insts > >> > 1819780127 # > >> > Number of instructions simulated > >> > long/60.bzip2/ref/alpha/tru64/simple-timing/m5stats.txt:8:sim_insts > >> > 1819780127 # > >> > Number of instructions simulated > >> > > >> > > >> > Lastly, I also noticed we dont have a low % of the SPEC regressions > >> > for the O3 CPU (in comparison to the SimpleCPU)... We (or maybe just > >> > me?!) should probably get to work on updating that since there has > >> > been loads of detail getting that to be flexible with all kind of > >> > architectures. It would be a shame to have to re-engineer and take the > >> > time to fix things > >> > that may have previously worked... > >> > > >> > -- > >> > ---------- > >> > Korey L Sewell > >> > Graduate Student - PhD Candidate > >> > Computer Science & Engineering > >> > University of Michigan > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > m5-dev mailing list > >> > [email protected] > >> > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> m5-dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > -- ---------- Korey L Sewell Graduate Student - PhD Candidate Computer Science & Engineering University of Michigan _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
