Hi Tushar, The simulation ran for 5,400,912,679 cycles. How do I reduce the cache sizes? Which source files do I need to modify?
I was also looking into DSENT tool. To the extent I understood, the current version of DSENT does not model the power of the Virtual Channel Allocation stage. It only models the power for buffer, crossbar, switch allocator and clock. I really need to calculate the power of the Virtual Channel Allocation stage. Thanks for your help. Thanks, Pavan On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Tushar Krishna <tus...@csail.mit.edu>wrote: > Hi Pavan, > There are two issues here. > One, as Mitch pointed out, is that Orion is not entirely accurate. > I would suggest computing activity counts from garnet and feeding them to > DSENT. > > However, I have a feeling you will see a similar phenomenon (dynamic power > >> leakage power) even with DSENT. > How many cycles did your simulation run for? > For full system runs in gem5, the network activity is typically very low > (since network gets flits only on cache misses). > As a result your dynamic power is very low. > Network activity can be increased by reducing cache sizes. > > cheers, > Tushar > > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Pavan Poluri wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks a lot for your detailed reply. > > Thanks, > Pavan > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mitch Hayenga < > mitch.hayenga+g...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the >> last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because >> its internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly). >> >> More Information: >> 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool >> called DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper >> they highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it >> capable of being off by ~10x in power. >> >> 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation >> into why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. ( >> http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) >> >> Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 >> has received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't >> trust it. >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Mitch Hayenga >> <mitch.haye...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in >>> the last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly >>> because its internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters >>> properly). >>> >>> More Information: >>> 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool >>> called DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper >>> they highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it >>> capable of being off by ~10x in power. >>> >>> 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation >>> into why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. ( >>> http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) >>> >>> Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 >>> has received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't >>> trust it. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Pavan Poluri >>> <poluripa...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have executed the Blackscholes application of the PARSEC benchmark >>>> suite with 16 threads on the input file set (in_4.txt) with a full system >>>> simulation with 16 cores, 16 L2 caches and 16 directories on a mesh >>>> topology with 4 rows. I have used the MOESI_CMP_directory protocol. The >>>> technology used is 90nm with a clock frequency of 1GHz and operating >>>> voltage VDD of 1.2V. I was going through the power statistics in the >>>> ruby.stats file. The following are the power numbers from the simulation. >>>> >>>> Router Dynamic Power = 0.00710691 W => 0.4441 mW per router >>>> Router Static Power = 0.452366 W => 28.272 mW per router >>>> Router Clock Power = 0.541901 W >>>> >>>> I am confused with these power numbers. The dynamic power is very very >>>> less compared to the static power. I do not understand why the dynamic >>>> power is so low even when the simulation resulted in the injection of >>>> 75,899,868 flits and the successful reception of 75,899,865 flits. Am I >>>> doing something wrong with the simulation? Do I need to set some parameters >>>> for the power calculations? >>>> >>>> Thanks for your time. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Pavan >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gem5-users mailing list >>>> gem5-users@gem5.org >>>> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mitch Hayenga >>> mitch.haye...@gmail.com >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list gem5-users@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
