I think there a problem with your binary. I ran your binary with my revision (8920) but get this error:
0: system.remote_gdb.listener: listening for remote gdb on port 7000 **** REAL SIMULATION **** info: Entering event queue @ 0. Starting simulation... FATAL: kernel too old panic: Tried to read unmapped address 0xffffffffffffffd0. @ cycle 6273000 However there is no problem with my binary. I will send my binary to you. On 6/8/12, mingkai huang <huangming...@gmail.com> wrote: > No fast forward and max inst. I compiled the binary in SPEC2006 and I > didn't modify the source file. The input is from test input. > I have posted the link to download the binary and input I used in my > previous email, and I wrote the command I used in my first email. > > 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. > The os I used is RHEL 6.2. > > The link to my binary and input: > http://mail.qq.com/cgi-bin/ftnExs_download?k=0962383845ebe89e745811294262054e53570059515a0e041a555c0f544f0356540315015355534c0f530f01535253000556080a646b37034d0b480a4a105613375f&t=exs_ftn_download&code=7b88db7a > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Mahmood Naderan > <mahmood...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> what input do you use? have you modify source code? How many fast >> forward? how many max inst/tick? >> i have not such problem with bzip2 for -F 2000000000 --maxtick >> 100000000000 >> >> On 6/7/12, mingkai huang <huangming...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> -- >> // Naderan *Mahmood; >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
