I want to know is there any difference between a syscall in ALPHA and X86? For example, ioctl is implemented for ALPHA. So in arch/x86/linux/syscalls.cc I just called ioctlFunc<X86Linux64>.
That mean X86_SE will use the ALPHA_SE implementation of ioctl. Is that correct? On 2/13/12, Mahmood Naderan <[email protected]> wrote: > If you can run the benchmarks I listed in the first post using > ALPHA_SE, then the problem is with X86_SE syscalls. I wanted to be > sure that they are runable with gem5. The benchmarks are compiled with > static options. > > For example, when I run tonto, I see that at the beginning of > simulation the whole 32GB memory of host machine is eaten!! That mean > there is a bug that eat all memory. > > For some syscalls that are not implemeted in X86 (ioctl, lstat), I did > the same thing posted at > http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~vince/projects/m5/m5_x86_64_se_status.html > > So maybe the problem is with *disabling the syscalls*. I don't know. > > > > On 2/13/12, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> There is a list including all the system calls implemented and >> unimplemented. Apparently ioctl is not implemented. Either you can change >> fatal to warning to see if it works, or run it in FS mode instead of SE >> mode. Or you can implement it by yourself. >> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:06:49 -0500, [email protected] wrote: >>> Hi Matt, >>> >>> I am trying to run some SPEC2006 benchmarks as well and I've tried >>> running with the se.py method that you mentioned but it seems to work >>> for certain benchmarks but not others. For example, I was able to run >>> bzip2 fine but when I tired to run perlbench or bwaves, I get the >>> following error: >>> >>> fatal: syscall ioctl (#16) unimplemented. >>> @ cycle 5818000 >>> [unimplementedFunc:build/X86_SE/sim/syscall_emul.cc, line 83] >>> >>> >>> Do you have any idea how to fix this? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Quoting Matt Poremba <[email protected]>: >>> >>>> Hi Mahmood, >>>> >>>> >>>> You need to compile SPEC2006 statically to start. After that you can >>>> either >>>> run directly using se.py, for example: >>>> >>>> build/ALPHA_MESI_CMP_directory/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py -c >>>> /path/to/CPU2006/bin/dealII -o 23 >>>> >>>> or, you can use the LiveProcess variables defined here: >>>> http://gem5.org/SPEC2006_benchmarks . These scripts don't exactly work >> if >>>> you copy and paste them from there (you'll need to set binary_dir and >>>> it >>>> only supports 1 CPU among other things). The key thing is to set >>>> "system.cpu[i].workload >>>> = some_LiveProcess_variable". Personally, I wrote my own script to take >> a >>>> list of spec benchmarks to run and assigned the corresponding >> LiveProcess >>>> to each CPU. This worked fine. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Poremba >>>> Ph.D. Candidate >>>> 111N IST Building >>>> Pennsylvania State University >>>> University Park, PA 16802 >>>> Phone: 814-689-9447 >>>> Email: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Mahmood Naderan >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> Has anyone tried the following benchmarks in SE mode (any ISA)? >>>>> >>>>> perlbench >>>>> gamess >>>>> leslie3d >>>>> namd >>>>> dealII >>>>> tonto >>>>> wrf >>>>> sphinx3 >>>>> >>>>> If yes, please share your solution >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -- >>>>> // Naderan *Mahmood; >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> gem5-users mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gem5-users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> > > > -- > -- > // Naderan *Mahmood; > -- -- // Naderan *Mahmood; _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
