I tried that command line and I haven't seen any segfault yet. I'll let
it run and see if anything happens. What version of the code are you using?

Gabe

Geoffrey Blake wrote:
>
> I’ve added a couple edits, but nothing major, ie: added statistics to
> the bus model, and some extra latency randomization to cache misses to
> get better averages of parallel code runs.  None of this is tied to
> the trace-flags mechanism that I can determine.  
>
>  
>
> I did run the code through valgrind, but ridiculously enough, the
> segfault disappears. I’ll keep digging in my spare time. 
>
>  
>
> The “Exec” trace flags work fine (billions of instructions, no
> problems) with an old version of m5 that is somewhere between beta4
> and beta5 of the stable releases. Now I can trace maybe a few thousand
> instructions before M5 seg faults.
>
>  
>
> Here is a stripped command line that does expose the bug with the
> least number of variables to consider in case someone out there wants
> to try and duplicate the segfaults I’m seeing (it could be a product
> of my build setup, so I’d appreciate it if someone could verify
> independently):
>
> % m5.opt –trace-flags=”ExecEnable” fs.py –b MutexTest –t –n 1 > /dev/null
>
>  
>
> Geoff
>
>  
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Korey Sewell
> *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2009 9:56 AM
> *To:* M5 Developer List
> *Subject:* Re: [m5-dev] Memory corruption in m5 dev repository when
> using --trace-flags="ExecEnable"
>
>  
>
> I would echo Gabe sentiments. I've been suspicious of the trace-flags
> causing memory corruption for awhile now, but every time I dig into it
> there's some small error that I'm propagating through that finally
> surfaces.
>
> In the big picture, I suspect that the trace-flags just exacerbate any
> kind of memory-corruption issues since you are accessing things at
> such a heavy-rate.
>
> In terms of debugging, is there any code that you edited that is
> tagged when you use "ExecEnable" rather than just "Exec"?
>
> Also, if you can turn valgrind on for maybe the 1st thousand/million
> cycles with ExecEnable you'll probably find something.
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Gabriel Michael Black
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Does this happen when you start tracing sooner? I'd suggest valgrind,
> especially if you can make the segfault happen quickly. If you wait
> for your simulation to get to 1400000000000 ticks in valgrind, you may
> die before you see the result. There's a suppression file in util
> which should cut down on the noise.
>
> Gabe
>
>
> Quoting Geoffrey Blake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
>
> > I stumbled upon what appears to be a memory corruption bug in the
> current M5
> > repository.  If on the command line I enter:
> >
> > % ./build/ALPHA_FS/m5.opt -trace-flags="ExecEnable"
> > -trace-start=1400000000000 fs.py -b <benchmark> -t -n <cpus> <more
> > parameters>. The simulator will error with a segmentation fault or
> > occasionally an assert not long after starting to trace instructions.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have run this through gdb in with m5.debug and see the same
> errors, the
> > problem is the stack trace showing the cause of the seg fault or assert
> > changes depending on the inputs to the simulator. So, I have not
> been able
> > to pin point this bug which appears to be a subtle memory corruption
> > somewhere in the code. This error does not happen for other trace
> flags such
> > as the "Cache" trace flag. It appears linked solely to the instruction
> > tracing mechanism.  Has anybody else seen this bug?
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm using an up to date repository I pulled from m5sim.org
> <http://m5sim.org> this morning.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Geoff
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> m5-dev mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ----------
> Korey L Sewell
> Graduate Student - PhD Candidate
> Computer Science & Engineering
> University of Michigan
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.40/2039 - Release Date:
> 04/03/09 06:19:00
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to