I reduced the number of fast forward to 20 instructions and maxinst to 10 and turn on the ExecAll flag.
The old one looks like: 23000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : @_start+36.3 : CALL_NEAR_I : subi rsp, rsp, 0x8 : IntAlu : D=0x00007fffffffed38 24000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : @_start+36.4 : CALL_NEAR_I : wrip , t7, t1 : IntAlu : 25000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : @__libc_start_main : push r15 25000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : @__libc_start_main.0 : PUSH_R : st r15, SS:[rsp + 0xfffffffffffffff8] : MemWrite : D=0x0000000000000000 A=0x7fffffffed30 hack: be nice to actually delete the event here Switched CPUS @ tick 25000 Changing memory mode to timing switching cpus **** REAL SIMULATION **** info: Entering event queue @ 25000. Starting simulation... 67000: system.switch_cpus + A0 T0 : @__libc_start_main.1 : PUSH_R : subi rsp, rsp, 0x8 : IntAlu : D=0x00007fffffffed30 FetchSeq=1 CPSeq=0 67000: system.switch_cpus + A0 T0 : @__libc_start_main+2 : mov eax, 0 67000: system.switch_cpus + A0 T0 : @__libc_start_main+2.0 : MOV_R_I : limm eax, 0 : IntAlu : D=0x0000000000000000 FetchSeq=2 CPSeq=1 67000: system.switch_cpus + A0 T0 : @__libc_start_main+7 : push r14 But the new one is: 23000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : 0x400364.3 : CALL_NEAR_I : subi rsp, rsp, 0x8 : IntAlu : D=0x00007fffffffed38 24000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : 0x400364.4 : CALL_NEAR_I : wrip , t7, t1 : IntAlu : 25000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : 0x470960 : push r15 25000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : 0x470960.0 : PUSH_R : st r15, SS:[rsp + 0xfffffffffffffff8] : MemWrite : D=0x0000000000000000 A=0x7fffffffed30 26000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : 0x470960.1 : PUSH_R : subi rsp, rsp, 0x8 : IntAlu : D=0x00007fffffffed30 27000: system.cpu + A0 T0 : 0x470962 : mov eax, 0 As you can see, in the old version switch at tick 25000 but the new version switch at 41000. The gap is large though. Do you know what does " @__libc_start_main" mean in the old version? On 4/15/12, Mahmood Naderan <[email protected]> wrote: > I am trying what you said, but can you clarify this: > > Although the -F option is 20M instruction in both versions, I noticed that > the old version enters real simulation at tick 22,407,755,000 but the new > version enters at tick 90,443,309,000 > > I made the config files as closely as possible (same system bus freq, O3 > parameters, ...) > > Why they switch at different tick numbers? > -- > // Naderan *Mahmood; > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Korey Sewell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - make every O3CPU parameter that is different in the new version, the >> same as the old version >> >> - check the stats file for major differences. >> For example: Are the L1/L2 miss rates higher or lower? Are your caches >> the >> same size and associativity? This is h.264, so is there a lot of floating >> point insts being committed? If so, maybe the change is in the latencies >> of >> the FP-Unit in the Function Unit Pool. >> >> - run gem5 for a small # of instructions (e.g. maxinsts=10) and see if >> there is a difference in the number of ticks it takes to complete (this >> is >> *after* all the O3 parameters are the same). If there is a difference, >> then >> turn on some O3 flags or check the stats and see what's going on there. >> If >> there is no difference increase the maxinsts and try again until you see >> the simulations diverging. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Mahmood Naderan >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I did that. >>> There are some differences and I attached them. In short, I see this: >>> >>> old: >>> children=dcache dtb icache itb tracer workload >>> >>> new: >>> children=dcache dtb icache interrupts itb tracer workload >>> >>> Also the commitwidth, fetchwidth and some other parameters are 8 in the >>> new version, but they are 4 in the old version. So I really wonder why >>> it >>> has a very low IPC. >>> >>> I will be greatly thankful if someone else try that. >>> Also, I emailed another problem at >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.m5.devel/14987 about >>> "Unable to find destination for addr" which I encountered in the new >>> version. >>> >>> Appreciate any idea. >>> >>> >>> >>> >I believe the 'dotencode' message just means you should upgrade to a >>> newer version of mercurial. >>> ok I will try that. >>> -- >>> // Naderan *Mahmood; >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Steve Reinhardt >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> I believe the 'dotencode' message just means you should upgrade to a >>>> newer version of mercurial. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Mahmood Naderan >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I forgot to say that I removed the 'dotencode' feature and the "hg >>>>> heads" says: >>>>> >>>>> mahmood@tiger:gem5$ hg heads >>>>> changeset: 8920:99083b5b7ed4 >>>>> abort: data/.hgtags.i@b151ff1fd9df: no match found! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4/14/12, Mahmood Naderan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > For the old one, I use: >>>>> > build/X86_SE/m5.fast configs/example/cmp.py -F 20000000 --maxtick >>>>> > 10000000000 -d --caches --l2cache -b h264_sss >>>>> > --prog-interval=1000000 >>>>> > >>>>> > for the new one I use: >>>>> > build/X86/m5.fast configs/example/cmp.py --cpu-type=detailed -F >>>>> > 20000000 --maxtick 10000000000 --caches --l2cache -b h264_sss >>>>> > --prog-interval=1000000 >>>>> > >>>>> > I attached the configs and stats. Thanks >>>>> > >>>>> > On 4/14/12, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >> So, with 8613:712d8bf07020 you got and IPC of 1.54, and with some >>>>> version >>>>> >> near 8944:d062cc7a8bdf, you get an ipc of 0.093. Which CPU type are >>>>> you >>>>> >> using? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Nilay >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012, Mahmood Naderan wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> The previous release is: >>>>> >>> changeset: 8613:712d8bf07020 >>>>> >>> tag: tip >>>>> >>> user: Nilay Vaish<[email protected]> >>>>> >>> date: Sat Nov 05 15:32:23 2011 -0500 >>>>> >>> summary: Tests: Update stats due to addition of fence microop >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> And the IPC is 1.541534 >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> However for the new release, I am not able to find the head: >>>>> >>> mahmood@tiger:gem5$ hg head >>>>> >>> abort: requirement 'dotencode' not supported! >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On 4/14/12, Nilay Vaish <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>> How much is the difference and which versions of gem5 are you >>>>> talking >>>>> >>>> about? >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>>> >>>> Nilay >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012, Mahmood Naderan wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> In the new version, I see that the IPC of h264 (with sss input) >>>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>> very very low. However with the previous releases, this value is >>>>> fine >>>>> >>>>> and acceptable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you know how can I find the bottleneck? Which stat value >>>>> >>>>> shows >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> weired behaviour? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ISA = x86 >>>>> >>>>> -F = 50,000,000 >>>>> >>>>> --maxtick = 10,000,000,000 >>>>> >>>>> L1 = 32kB, 4 >>>>> >>>>> L2 = 2MB, 16 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the IPC obtained is 0.093432 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have you faced such result? Please let me know >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> // 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> -- >>>>> >>> -- >>>>> >>> // 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 >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > -- >>>>> > // Naderan *Mahmood; >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> // 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> - Korey >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gem5-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> > -- -- // Naderan *Mahmood; _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
