Andrew, You may want to wait until the most recent patches for the checker are pushed that will allow you to just specify --checker on the command line. I forgot the checker as it is now in the tree had broken during a recent merge with other changes. Or, if you go to M5's reviewboard you can grab the patches for the checker and apply them.
Geoff On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Andrew Cebulski <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm getting the following error when running this basic command with the CPU > Checker enabled: > > build/ARM/gem5.fast configs/example/fs.py -b ArmUbuntu --cpu-type=detailed > --caches > > Error in unproxying param 'workload' of system.cpu.checker > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<string>", line 1, in ? > File "/gem5/src/python/m5/main.py", line 361, in main > exec filecode in scope > File "configs/example/fs.py", line 215, in ? > Simulation.run(options, root, test_sys, FutureClass) > File "/gem5/configs/common/Simulation.py", line 246, in run > m5.instantiate(checkpoint_dir) > File "/gem5/src/python/m5/simulate.py", line 66, in instantiate > for obj in root.descendants(): obj.unproxyParams() > File "/gem5/src/python/m5/SimObject.py", line 851, in unproxyParams > value = value.unproxy(self) > File "/gem5/src/python/m5/params.py", line 196, in unproxy > return [v.unproxy(base) for v in self] > File "/gem5/src/python/m5/proxy.py", line 89, in unproxy > result, done = self.find(obj) > File "/gem5/src/python/m5/proxy.py", line 162, in find > val = val[m] > IndexError: list index out of range > > Any idea why this is happening? I'm not even attempting to launch from a > checkpoint here (though this exact error does occur when attempting > restoring from checkpoint now). Some notes on my environment... I'm > running Python 2.4.3, SWIG 1.3.40 and GCC 4.5.3. > > Note that when I run atomic/timing CPUs, I get a segmentation fault. I'm > assuming this is because they don't have checker's setup in the code. Let > me know if otherwise. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> >> >> You should be able to re-compile gem5 with USE_CHECKER=1 on the command >> line and it will include the checker and run it when you restore to the o3 >> cpu. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> On 01.03.2012 14:02, Andrew Cebulski wrote: >> >> Hi Ali, >> >> Okay, thanks, I'll try out the checker cpu. Is this the best resource >> available on how to use the Checker CPU? -- http://gem5.org/Checker >> Also, my run restoring the O3 CPU from my checkpoint has the same >> result: >> Detailed CPU (checkpoint restore) : system.cpu.committedInsts = >> 646985567 >> >> system.cpu.fetch.Insts = 648951747 >> Thanks, >> Andrew >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Ali Saidi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> >>> >>> The first guess is that possibly the cpu results in a different code path >>> or different scheduler decisions which lengthen execution. Another >>> possibility is that the O3 cpu as configured by the arm-detailed >>> configuration has some issue. While this is possible it's not incredibly >>> likely. You could try to restore from the checkpoint and run with the >>> checker cpu. This creates a little atomic like cpu that sits next to the o3 >>> core and verifies it's execution which might tell you if there is a bug in >>> the o3 model. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ali >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01.03.2012 13:04, Andrew Cebulskiwrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> I'm experiencing some problems that I currently am attributing to >>> restoring from a checkpoint, then switching to an arm_detailed CPU >>> (O3_ARM_v7a_3). I first noticed the problem due to my committed instruction >>> counts not lining up correctly between different CPUs for a benchmark I'm >>> running (by roughly 170M instructions). The stats below are reset right >>> before running the benchmark, then dumped afterwards: >>> Atomic CPU (no checkpoint restore): system.cpu.numInsts = 476085242 >>> Detailed CPU (no checkpoint restore): system.cpu.committedInsts = >>> 476128320 >>> >>> system.cpu.fetch.Insts = 478463491 >>> Arm_detailed CPU (checkpoint restore): >>> system.switch_cpus_1.committedInsts = 646468886 >>> >>> system.switch_cpus_1.fetch.Insts = 660969371 >>> Arm_detailed CPU (no checkpoint restore): system.cpu.committedInsts >>> = 476107801 >>> >>> system.cpu.fetch.Insts = 491814681 >>> I included both the committed and fetched instructions, to see if the >>> problem is with fetchs getting counted as committed even if they are not >>> (i.e. insts not getting squashed). It does not seem like that is the case >>> from the stats above...as the arm_detailed run without a checkpoint has >>> roughly the same difference between fetched/committed instructions. I >>> noticed that the switch arm_detailed cpu when restoring from a checkpoint >>> lacks both a icache and dcache as children, but I read in a previous post >>> that they are connected to fetch/iew respectively, so this is probably not >>> the issue. I assume it's just not shown explicitly in the config.ini >>> file... >>> I'm running a test right now to see if switching to a regular >>> DerivO3CPU has the same issue. Regardless of its results, does anyone have >>> any idea why I'm seeing roughly 170M more committed instructions in the >>> arm_detailed CPU run when I restore from a checkpoint? I've attached my >>> config file from the arm_detailed with checkpoint run for reference. >>> Here's the run command for when I use a checkpoint: >>> build/ARM/gem5.fast -d [dir] configs/example/fs.py -b [benchmark] -r >>> 1 --checkpoint-dir=[chkpt-dir] --caches -s >>> Lastly, I'm running off of revision 8813 from 2/3/12. Let me know if >>> you need anymore info (i.e. stats). >>> Thanks, >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
