Hi Matheus,

I would think even with the atomic CPU you should see some form of stats change 
when you change the cache size. That said, the atomic CPU should never be used 
for any time-related performance studies. The notion of time is very abstract, 
and it is intended for fast-forwarding and warming (and development of 
functionality) only. Even the timing CPU is questionable in this regard. If you 
are doing any performance studies you are better off using the MinorCPU or the 
O3CPU with suitable configuration options.

Hope that helps.

Andreas

From: Matheus Alcântara Souza <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:24
To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
Andreas Hansson <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [gem5-users] Miss rate douby

Maybe the problem is the use of Atomic CPU.

I'll try to use Timing one, and post the results soon.

Thanks.
Matheus

2015-03-25 21:38 GMT-03:00 Matheus Alcântara Souza 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:

Hi Andreas,

The workloads are the same. I am using the Parsec stuff, by the way.

The number of instructions (sim_ticks) are also the same.

I'm using the default CPU (I guess it is atomic), no O3.

I did not change the latency for the different cache sizes. But the question is 
if the cache miss rate should affect the time (more misses - small caches - 
means more time, right?). If I increase the latency of bigger caches, the 
behavior probably will be "more time spent with bigger caches", the opposite.

Sorry if the text is confuse.

Than you!

Em 25/03/2015 20:41, "Andreas Hansson" 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> escreveu:
Hi Matheus,

Are you dumping stats (or exiting) after some specific number of instructions 
(I.e. are you doing the same amount of work)? Also, if you are using the 
default o3 configuration it is very aggressive, so perhaps the latency can be 
hidden?

Andreas

From: Matheus Alcântara Souza <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Reply-To: gem5 users mailing list 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 23:26
To: gem5 users mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [gem5-users] Miss rate douby

Hi all,

Consider two gem5 simulation enviroments, one with an l2 cache of size 2048kB, 
and the other with the same parameters, but a smaller l2 cache of 256kB.

I used X86 with fs.py, with Classic Memory System (no Ruby). The results showed 
an increase in l2 overall miss rate, if the cache is smaller. But the 
sim_seconds remains the same.

Is it normal? Anyone have suggestions about what to check?

Best,
Matheus Alcântara Souza

-- 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.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered 
in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782

_______________________________________________
gem5-users mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users



--

Atenciosamente,
Matheus Alcântara Souza

-- 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.

ARM Limited, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, Registered 
in England & Wales, Company No: 2557590
ARM Holdings plc, Registered office 110 Fulbourn Road, Cambridge CB1 9NJ, 
Registered in England & Wales, Company No: 2548782
_______________________________________________
gem5-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users

Reply via email to