Well, in MyBench.py there is only one entry for h264_sss h264_dir = spec_dir + '464.h264ref/exe/' h264_bin = h264_dir + 'h264ref_base.amd64-m64-gcc44-nn' h264_sss_data = h264_dir + 'sss_encoder_main.cfg'
h264_sss = LiveProcess() h264_sss.executable = h264_bin h264_sss.cmd = [h264_sss.executable] + ['-d', h264_sss_data] h264_sss.cwd = h264_dir On 4/15/12, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect you're not running exactly the same binary in both cases. > __libc_start_main is one of the functions provided by glibc (if I > remember correctly) which run before main() and get some basic things > set up. If it says __libc_start_main in one, it should say it in the > other one too, unless the thing that finds the symbol name was broken > somehow. > > Gabe > > On 04/14/12 22:50, Mahmood Naderan wrote: >> 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 >>>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
