Thanks! I tried that, but it seems doing that can't fix this problem.
The output of bzip2 going wrong is many "info: Increasing stack size by one
page." followed by "fatal: Over max stack size for one thread". I think
that bzip2 goes into a dead loop and increases the stack for ever. No
matter how much stack size set, the stack will be running out.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Mahmood Naderan <mahmood...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I faced that before. Thank to Ali, the problem is now fixed
> You should modify two files:
>
> 1) src/sim/process.cc
> you should find something like this:
> if (stack_base - stack_min > 8 * 1024 * 1024)
> fatal("Over max stack size for one thread\n");
>
>
> 2) src/arch/x86/process.cc
> you should find two occurrence of this statement
> next_thread_stack_base = stack_base - (8 * 1024 * 1024);
>
> Now change the right side from 8*1024*1024 to whatever you want.
> 32*1024*1024 is enough I think.
>
> Hope that help
>
> On 6/3/12, mingkai huang <huangming...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I am sorry to be too late to rely.
> > I tracediffed the output of 8842 and 8841 and attached the output. I
> > revised one place of the output format in 8841 to make the output more
> > similar, but it seems the format changed a lot, and the diff may not
> > be helpful. I also put a breakpoint, printed out the stack trace, and
> > attached the output.
> > This is the bzip2 and input I used:
> >
> http://mail.qq.com/cgi-bin/ftnExs_download?k=0962383845ebe89e745811294262054e53570059515a0e041a555c0f544f0356540315015355534c0f530f01535253000556080a646b37034d0b480a4a105613375f&t=exs_ftn_download&code=7b88db7a
> > Because of mail list size limitation, I use the qq large file attachment.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Steve Reinhardt <ste...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Mingkai,
> >>
> >> Can you run under gdb, put a breakpoint on this fatal statement (which
> is
> >> in
> >> Process::fixupStackFault() in sim/process.cc), print out the stack trace
> >> when you hit it, and mail that to the list?
> >>
> >> I wonder if the new branch predictor is causing some different
> wrong-path
> >> execution, and that we are erroneously calling fatal() on something that
> >> looks like a stack fault but is actually a misspeculated instruction.
> >>
> >> Given that all the regressions pass, I doubt the new branch predictor is
> >> actually changing the committed execution path. That's why I think it
> >> may
> >> have something to do with a bug in how we handle misspeculation.
> >>
> >> If anyone knows the code well enough to say whether this seems likely or
> >> unlikely, that would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Geoffrey Blake <bla...@umich.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately the CheckerCPU does not work for x86 and is only
> >>> verified as working on ARM. It needs some additional work to support
> >>> the representation of machine instructions for x86.
> >>>
> >>> Geoff
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Gabe Black <gbl...@eecs.umich.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > The change may have made the branch predictor code behave
> incorrectly,
> >>> > for instance an instruction could execute twice, a misspeculated
> >>> > instruction could sneak through and commit, an instruction could be
> >>> > skipped, a branch could be "corrected" to go down the wrong path.
> >>> > There
> >>> > are lots of things that could go wrong. Alternatively, the branch
> >>> > predictor might have just gotten better and put more stress on some
> >>> > other part of the CPU, or coincidentally lined up circumstances which
> >>> > expose another bug. You should try to find where execution diverges
> >>> > between O3 and the atomic CPU, possibly using tracediff or possibly
> >>> > using the checker CPU. I'm not sure the checker works correctly with
> >>> > x86, but if it does this is pretty much exactly what it's for.
> >>> >
> >>> > Gabe
> >>> >
> >>> > On 05/14/12 17:22, mingkai huang wrote:
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >> I tried to use gem5 to run SPEC2006 in x86 O3 mode. When I ran
> bzip2,
> >>> >> it failed with:
> >>> >> fatal: Over max stack size for one thread
> >>> >> My command line is:
> >>> >> build/X86/gem5.fast configs/example/se.py --cpu-type=detailed
> >>> >> --caches
> >>> >> -c bzip2 -o "input.program 5"
> >>> >> The version of my gem5 is 8981.
> >>> >> Bzip2 can run correctly in atomic mode.
> >>> >> I binary searched where the problem happened first, and found
> version
> >>> >> 8842. I noticed this patch is about branch prediction, and I don't
> >>> >> understand why this can affect the correctness of an application.
> >>> >> Before 8842, Bzip2 can run correctly in both mode, but the outputed
> >>> >> numbers of "info: Increasing stack size by one page." are not equal.
> >>> >> Because of email size limitation, I can't attached the file I used.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > gem5-users mailing list
> >>> > gem5-users@gem5.org
> >>> > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> gem5-users mailing list
> >>> gem5-users@gem5.org
> >>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> gem5-users mailing list
> >> gem5-users@gem5.org
> >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Mingkai Huang
> >
>
>
> --
> // Naderan *Mahmood;
> _______________________________________________
> gem5-users mailing list
> gem5-users@gem5.org
> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
>
--
Best regards,
Mingkai Huang
_______________________________________________
gem5-users mailing list
gem5-users@gem5.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
