Hello again, I've never tried the -s option, but as my configs/common/Options.py says, it's used to begin with a checkpoint and switch to timing simple (cache warm-up) and finally to the detailled cpu. If you're not using checkpoints, probably it's switching to the detailled cpu anyway.
Regards, -- Fernando A. Endo, PhD student and researcher Université de Grenoble, UJF France 2013/1/30 Rodrigo Reynolds Ramírez <[email protected]> > Fernando thanks for your reply, but I have a question, I put a printf in > the three functions that are used buy simple Memory: > > Tick SimpleMemory::MemoryPort::recvFunctional(PacketPtr pkt) > Tick SimpleMemory::MemoryPort::recvAtomic(PacketPtr pkt) > bool SimpleTimingPort::recvTimingReq(PacketPtr pkt) > > when I use the se.py without the -s option just the first and second > functions printed something, when I added the -s option the three function > printed something but mostly the Timing function. So, when I add the -s to > the se.py the is not used a timing simulation? > > Rodrigo > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:33:33 +0100 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [gem5-users] About statistics > > Hello, > > In my se.py file, if you don't set the --cpu-type option, the default is > atomic cpu. So, no timing! > > Regards, > > -- > Fernando A. Endo, PhD student and researcher > > Université de Grenoble, UJF > France > > > > 2013/1/25 Rodrigo Reynolds Ramírez <[email protected]> > > I added the -s option to execution line, after include se.py and I see > differences into the execution time, I tried it with the helloWorld test. I > also tried gcc but after 3,5h the execution has not finished, is it normal? > without the -s option it takes around 1,5h but I don't have any performance > measure. > > Rodrigo > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:15:05 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [gem5-users] About statistics > > I think I am using timing. > > I compiled the simulator with: > scons build/X86/gem5.opt > > an run the benchmark using these command: > ./build/X86/gem5.opt configs/example/se.py --caches --l1d_size=32kB > --l1i_size=32kB --l2cache --l2_size=256kB > > --cmd=/scratch/rodri/spec2006/benchspec/CPU2006/403.gcc/run/run_base_train_rrr-static-gcc45-64bit.0000/gcc_base.rrr-static-gcc45-64bit > --input=/scratch/rodri/spec2006/benchspec/CPU2006/403.gcc/run/run_base_train_rrr-static-gcc45-64bit.0000/ > integrate.in --option=" -o m5out/bench.s" --output=m5out/bench.out > --errout=m5out/bench.err > > For a real measure of performance do I need to use the -s option for se.py? > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:01:36 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [gem5-users] About statistics > > > > Atomic or timing? > > > > From: Rodrigo Reynolds Ram�rez <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > Reply-To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto: > [email protected]>> > > Date: Friday, 25 January 2013 12:26 > > To: gem5-users <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > Subject: Re: [gem5-users] About statistics > > > > I am changing the latency of the simple memory in se.py, I changed the > line in this way: > > > > first case: > > physmem = SimpleMemory(range=AddrRange("512MB"),latency="1000ns") > > > > second case: > > physmem = SimpleMemory(range=AddrRange("512MB"),latency="30ns") > > > > I checked config.ini and the change is done but the results in stats.txt > are unchanged. I am using gem5-stable-f75ee4849c40. > > > > Rodrigo > > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:59:10 -0600 > > > Subject: Re: [gem5-users] About statistics > > > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > CC: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > > > > > On Thu, January 24, 2013 6:44 pm, Rodrigo Reynolds Ram�rez wrote: > > > > > > > > I think my simulation finish satisfactorily, when it finishes I get > this > > > > message: > > > > Exiting @ tick 3822080322000 because target called exit() > > > > and in both cases I get the same result in stats.txtsim_seconds > > > > 3.822080 > > > > and the simulations takes a lot of timehost_seconds > > > > 4091.93 > > > > > > > > I am running gcc from spec2006 with train inputs > > > > > > It is hard to believe that the run time would not change on changing > the > > > latency of the memory. Can you mention exactly the parameter you > changed > > > between the two simulations? > > > > > > -- > > > Nilay > > > > > > > -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gem5-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list > [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > > > _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list > [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
