Yes all that is correct. data msg size is 72 bytes, not 80. I will correct that on the wiki.
cheers, Tushar On Sep 17, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Pavan Poluri wrote: > Thank you. I just to make sure that I understood it the right way. > > In the file network/Network.py, in the declaration of RubyNetwork class > control message size is defined as > > control_msg_size = Param.Int(8, ""); > > So the control message size (m_control_msg_size) is 8 bytes. > > According to network/Network.cc, the data message size (m_data_msg_size) is > > m_data_msg_size = RubySystem::getBlockSizeBytes() + m_control_msg_size > > From ruby/system/RubySystem.py, > > block_size_bytes = Param.Int(64, "default cache block size") > > Therefore, m_data_size = 64+8 = 72 bytes. > > Since the flit size is 16 bytes, an 8 byte control message takes 1 flit and > 72 bytes data message takes 5 flits. > > Am I correct? > > Thanks, > Pavan > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Tushar Krishna <tus...@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Answers inline. > > On Sep 17, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Pavan Poluri wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have a question on the ni_flit_size parameter in the file >> garnet/BaseGarnetNetwork.py. From the documentation I understood that >> ni_flit_size specifies the flit size in bytes. The default value is 16 >> bytes. In the documentation, it says that this results in a control message >> fitting in 1 flit and data message fitting in 5 flits. So this means that >> the control message is 16 bytes and the data message is 80 bytes. The >> following are the two questions I have: >> >> 1. Lets say if I change the ni_flit_size to 8 bytes, would it automatically >> translate to a control message that fits in 2 flits and data message fitting >> in 10 flits? >> > Yes. Take a look at NetworkInterface_d.cc where number of flits are > calculated. > >> 2. Are the sizes of control message (16 bytes) and data message (80 bytes) >> fixed? Is it possible to modify their sizes? >> > Take a look at network/Network.py/cc > >> Thanks for your time. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavan >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Pavan Poluri <poluripa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks Tushar. >> >> Thanks, >> Pavan >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Tushar Krishna <tus...@csail.mit.edu> >> wrote: >> If you divide the total flits by total cycles by 16, you can see that the >> injection rate is only 0.0009 flits/cycle/node. Hence your power is so low. >> The total network energy might be an alternate metric that you might want to >> consider instead of power to remove cycles from the picture. >> Take a look at src/mem/ruby/network/orion/NetworkPower.cc where the energy >> and power calculations are done. >> For a relative comparison, the numbers from Orion might work for you... >> You could compare the energy numbers for each component from Orion and DSENT >> if you want to see how much they differ. >> >> The cache sizes are in configs/common/Options.py >> >> >> On 09/12/2012 03:26 PM, Pavan Poluri wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list gem5-users@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
