Never mind, I figured out what the problem was. Thanks.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Mahshid Sedghi <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I have a similar problem, but I double check that I restore from the right > checkpoint. I'd like to checkpoint with fs.py and 1BG memory (using > mem-size option), and then restore with ruby_fs.py. But upon restoration, > gem5 tells me that it is expecting 128MB: > > fatal: Memory range size has changed! Saw 1073741824, expected 134217728 > > Do I miss something? > > Thanks. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:09 PM, David Roberts <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Thanks, I was using the wrong checkpoint file. >> >> On Oct 19, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Nilay Vaish wrote: >> >> > David, are you sure that you are using the correct checkpoint? The >> checkpoint '-r 1' may have been created using a different configuration. >> > >> > -- >> > Nilay >> > >> > On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Andreas Hansson wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> >> >> Is this using the latest trunk? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Andreas >> >> >> >> From: David Roberts <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> >> >> Reply-To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> >> >> Date: Friday, 19 October 2012 15:18 >> >> To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>>, gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> >> >> Subject: Re: [gem5-users] ARM Checkpoint restore segfault >> >> >> >> Thanks Ali, >> >> >> >> On a related issue, I tried checkpointing and restoring with atomic >> CPU both times and get a memory range difference error on restore. Is this >> a checkpointing bug? Output below. Thanks >> >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> Create checkpoint: >> >> >> >> ./build/ARM/gem5.opt configs/example/fs.py -n 1 >> --kernel=vmlinux.arm.smp.fb.2.6.38.8 --cpu-type=atomic --clock=2.5GHz >> --script=dave.rcS >> >> >> >> Load checkpoint: >> >> >> >> ./build/ARM/gem5.opt configs/example/fs.py -n 1 >> --kernel=vmlinux.arm.smp.fb.2.6.38.8 --cpu-type=atomic --clock=2.5GHz >> --script=dave.rcS -r 1 >> >> >> >> fatal: Memory range size has changed! Saw 67108864, expected 268435456 >> >> @ cycle 1973295712800 >> >> [unserializeStore:build/ARM/mem/physical.cc, line 406] >> >> Memory Usage: 315256 KBytes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 18, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Ali Saidi wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> >> >> It looks like the second system doesn't have a tlb (this=0x0) in the >> #0 frame. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> On 18.10.2012 11:14, David Roberts wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I'm using the latest development repository and ran into a problem >> when restoring checkpoints. I create the checkpoint in atomic mode, then >> restore it with detailed mode, which instantly segfaults. Any advice would >> be appreciated; >> >> >> >> 1) creating checkpoint >> >> >> >> ./build/ARM/gem5.opt configs/example/fs.py -n 1 >> --kernel=vmlinux-3.3-arm-vexpress-emm-pcie --machine-type=VExpress_EMM >> --cpu-type=atomic --clock=2.5GHz --script=test.rcS >> >> >> >> 2) restoring from checkpoint in detailed mode >> >> >> >> ./build/ARM/gem5.debug configs/example/fs.py -n 1 >> --kernel=vmlinux-3.3-arm-vexpress-emm-pcie --machine-type=VExpress_EMM >> --restore-with-cpu=detailed --caches --clock=2.5GHz --script=test.rcS -r 1 >> >> >> >> Error message when run in gdb; >> >> >> >> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> >> 0x000000000046c9e2 in ArmISA::TLB::invalidateMiscReg (this=0x0) at >> build/ARM/arch/arm/tlb.hh:258 >> >> 258 inline void invalidateMiscReg() { miscRegValid = false; } >> >> (gdb) bt >> >> #0 0x000000000046c9e2 in ArmISA::TLB::invalidateMiscReg (this=0x0) at >> build/ARM/arch/arm/tlb.hh:258 >> >> #1 0x00000000004c573e in ArmISA::copyRegs (src=0x3b8fe20, >> dest=0x3ec5eb0) at build/ARM/arch/arm/utility.cc:159 >> >> #2 0x000000000144b701 in SimpleThread::copyArchRegs (this=0x2adbd20, >> src_tc=0x3b8fe20) at build/ARM/cpu/simple_thread.cc:265 >> >> #3 0x000000000144ab2f in SimpleThread::copyState (this=0x2adbd20, >> oldContext=0x3b8fe20) at build/ARM/cpu/simple_thread.cc:165 >> >> #4 0x000000000144aa7b in SimpleThread::copyTC (this=0x2adbd20, >> context=0x3b8fe20) at build/ARM/cpu/simple_thread.cc:146 >> >> #5 0x000000000149ad94 in FullO3CPU<O3CPUImpl>::unserialize >> (this=0x3b33110, cp=0x49f8750, section=...) at build/ARM/cpu/o3/cpu.cc:1115 >> >> #6 0x0000000001ac2665 in SimObject::loadState (this=0x3b33110, >> cp=0x49f8750) at build/ARM/sim/sim_object.cc:83 >> >> #7 0x0000000001ea591f in _wrap_SimObject_loadState (args=0x2e21ef0) >> at build/ARM/python/m5/internal/param_SimObject_wrap.cc:3039 >> >> #8 0x00002aaaaab4b1e8 in PyObject_Call (func=0x2aaaaaee3908, >> arg=0x2e21ef0, kw=0x0) at Objects/abstract.c:2487 >> >> #9 0x00002aaaaabe25dc in ext_do_call (f=0x480d320, throwflag=<value >> optimized out>) at Python/ceval.c:3978 >> >> #10 PyEval_EvalFrameEx (f=0x480d320, throwflag=<value optimized out>) >> at Python/ceval.c:2410 >> >> #11 0x00002aaaaabe673f in PyEval_EvalCodeEx (co=0x2aaaaaffe558, >> globals=<value optimized out>, locals=<value optimized out>, >> args=0x32dbfa8, argcount=2, kws=0x32dbfb8, kwcount=0, defs=0x0, defcount=0, >> closure=0x0) at Python/ceval.c:2942 >> >> #12 0x00002aaaaabe4517 in call_function (f=0x32dbde0, throwflag=<value >> optimized out>) at Python/ceval.c:3775 >> >> #13 PyEval_EvalFrameEx (f=0x32dbde0, throwflag=<value optimized out>) >> at Python/ceval.c:2370 >> >> #14 0x00002aaaaabe673f in PyEval_EvalCodeEx (co=0x2cedd50, >> globals=<value optimized out>, locals=<value optimized out>, >> args=0x3809940, argcount=1, kws=0x3809948, kwcount=0, defs=0x32d07e8, >> defcount=1, closure=0x0) >> >> at Python/ceval.c:2942 >> >> #15 0x00002aaaaabe4517 in call_function (f=0x38096c0, throwflag=<value >> optimized out>) at Python/ceval.c:3775 >> >> #16 PyEval_EvalFrameEx (f=0x38096c0, throwflag=<value optimized out>) >> at Python/ceval.c:2370 >> >> #17 0x00002aaaaabe4e26 in call_function (f=0x37bacb0, throwflag=<value >> optimized out>) at Python/ceval.c:3765 >> >> #18 PyEval_EvalFrameEx (f=0x37bacb0, throwflag=<value optimized out>) >> at Python/ceval.c:2370 >> >> #19 0x00002aaaaabe673f in PyEval_EvalCodeEx (co=0x2d8d378, >> globals=<value optimized out>, locals=<value optimized out>, args=0x0, >> argcount=0, kws=0x0, kwcount=0, defs=0x0, defcount=0, closure=0x0) at >> Python/ceval.c:2942 >> >> #20 0x00002aaaaabe6782 in PyEval_EvalCode (co=0x0, >> globals=0x7fffffffa459, locals=0x144da20) at Python/ceval.c:515 >> >> #21 0x00002aaaaabe5576 in exec_statement (f=0x361d850, >> throwflag=<value optimized out>) at Python/ceval.c:4360 >> >> #22 PyEval_EvalFrameEx (f=0x361d850, throwflag=<value optimized out>) >> at Python/ceval.c:1706 >> >> #23 0x00002aaaaabe673f in PyEval_EvalCodeEx (co=0x2d2c8a0, >> globals=<value optimized out>, locals=<value optimized out>, args=0x0, >> argcount=0, kws=0x2db43c0, kwcount=0, defs=0x0, defcount=0, closure=0x0) at >> Python/ceval.c:2942 >> >> #24 0x00002aaaaabe4517 in call_function (f=0x2db4240, throwflag=<value >> optimized out>) at Python/ceval.c:3775 >> >> #25 PyEval_EvalFrameEx (f=0x2db4240, throwflag=<value optimized out>) >> at Python/ceval.c:2370 >> >> #26 0x00002aaaaabe673f in PyEval_EvalCodeEx (co=0x2d8d3f0, >> globals=<value optimized out>, locals=<value optimized out>, args=0x0, >> argcount=0, kws=0x0, kwcount=0, defs=0x0, defcount=0, closure=0x0) at >> Python/ceval.c:2942 >> >> #27 0x00002aaaaabe6782 in PyEval_EvalCode (co=0x0, >> globals=0x7fffffffa459, locals=0x144da20) at Python/ceval.c:515 >> >> #28 0x00002aaaaac076c9 in run_mod (str=0x20eac33 "m5.main()", >> start=<value optimized out>, globals=0x2b647b0, locals=0x2b647b0, >> flags=0x0) at Python/pythonrun.c:1330 >> >> #29 PyRun_StringFlags (str=0x20eac33 "m5.main()", start=<value >> optimized out>, globals=0x2b647b0, locals=0x2b647b0, flags=0x0) at >> Python/pythonrun.c:1293 >> >> #30 0x0000000001a82de8 in m5Main (argc=12, argv=0x7fffffffbcd8) at >> build/ARM/sim/init.cc:256 >> >> #31 0x000000000040a81b in main (argc=12, argv=0x7fffffffbcd8) at >> build/ARM/sim/main.cc:57 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> gem5-users mailing list >> >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> gem5-users mailing list >> >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users >> >> >> >> >> >> -- 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
