Hi,I was not really suggesting using SimPoints (even that is a good option depending on your needs). As you say, to generate the SimPoints you first have to run the full thing (although you can do it with less detailed CPU which greatly speeds up things). I was just stating the typical throughput (simulated instructions / real time) we're getting from Gem5 with O3 CPU so that James can check if his performance is "normal".
I have never run perlbench but I have run many workloads taking several days to finish so 3 days doesn't look too bad to me.
Regards,
Oscar
On 28/06/17 15:55, Asif Ali Khan wrote:
Hi Oscar,Yes, I agree with Simpoints its possible to simulate SPEC benchmarks but the problems is, how do you generate BBV file for the simpoint tool. I tried to generate this BBV file using Gem5 (for perlbench) and took like 3 days. Did I do something wrong?AsifOn Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 3:01:43 PM GMT+2, Oscar Rosell <[email protected]> wrote:Hi, Just so that you have a reference, we usually simulate SimPoints of 100M instructions (with 10M extra warmup instructions) and on a single core O3+L1+L2 model they take between 30 minutes and 75 minutes. Regards, Oscar On 28/06/17 10:47, Stine, James wrote: > Hi All, >> I am sorry to bother everyone. I am trying to gauge performance and would love some feedback on run-time performance. My main impetus for this Email is due to limited information I could find and just wanted to get some feedback on if there was some issues related to this topic. I apologize in advance if I missed something specific about this question.>> I did some tests on the queens benchmark as well as some others and my run times seem to take a long time. 16X grids within queens.c (e.g., queens 16) seem to run about 17 hours using AtomicMemory access with caching. The ASPLOS-13 tutorial seems to have very small numCycles, so not sure that is accurate for “-o 16” on queens.c. Eventually, I would love SPEC, but I am quite worried if queens.c takes forever, how can I even manage to get SPEC through. I also tried some other benchmarks like Matrix Multiplications, but some of them take just as long. However, queens does take a while to run, which I know is typical due to its intense computation mix. My x86 cycle counts (statically compiled with -O3 and loop unrolling) were: 60,055,907,458 on multi-core Intel extreme processors - again, I might have not run something correctly.>> If anyone can possibly share their tips/tricks - especially for eventual running of SPEC, it would be great. Does anyone do anything to maximize performance? Even the smallest of tips would be helpful. Perhaps, I am running gem5 with the wrong settings. Or, perhaps, the settings are correct and this is a normal set of run times. Anyways, I appreciate any help and also appreciate the wonder of gem5. Take care.> > All my best, > > James > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
