Thanks Tushar. Thanks, Pavan
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Tushar Krishna <tus...@csail.mit.edu>wrote: > 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 >>>> listgem5-users@gem5.orghttp://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
