There are a couple of examples of using simpoints in the configs directory ( https://gem5.googlesource.com/public/gem5/+/refs/heads/develop/configs/example/gem5_library/checkpoints/). This will be part of the next gem5 release (coming in a couple of weeks).
We would like to start distributing some of the resources for SimPoints. This should be coming soon. Cheers, Jason On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 9:32 AM Jonathan Kang via gem5-users < gem5-users@gem5.org> wrote: > Yes, you use SimPoint with the “fast” model (something simple, with no > timing) so that the tool knows the activity. It then determines windows of > importance so that you can run only those windows with the cycle accurate > model. > > > > *From: *Markus Bichl via gem5-users <gem5-users@gem5.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:49 PM > *To: *gem5-users@gem5.org <gem5-users@gem5.org> > *Cc: *Markus Bichl <e1625...@student.tuwien.ac.at> > *Subject: *[gem5-users] Re: SPEC CPU 2017 taking days to simulate > > Hi Jason, hi Jonathan, thanks a lot for pointing out SimPoint! I’m > currently searching for details on how to use SimPoint with gem5. Is it > right that I need to run the benchmarks at first using a timing CPU to take > checkpoints at first? I guess > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > > *This Message Is From an External Sender * > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > Hi Jason, hi Jonathan, > > > > thanks a lot for pointing out SimPoint! I’m currently searching for > details on how to use SimPoint with gem5. Is it right that I need to run > the benchmarks at first using a timing CPU to take checkpoints at first? I > guess (and hope) there is a way to generate the Simpoints in a faster way. > Can someone give me a hint, or a maybe some kind of guidance on how to use > Simpoint with gem5 v22? Thanks a lot! > > > > BR, Markus > > > > On 08.11.2022, at 20:10, Jonathan Kang <mos...@meta.com> wrote: > > > > Something as big as Spec typically wouldn’t be simulated as a whole but > rather, using SimPoint on a cycle-accurate model. > > > > *From: *Jason Lowe-Power via gem5-users <gem5-users@gem5.org> > *Date: *Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 11:05 AM > *To: *The gem5 Users mailing list <gem5-users@gem5.org> > *Cc: *Markus Bichl <e1625...@student.tuwien.ac.at>, Jason Lowe-Power < > ja...@lowepower.com> > *Subject: *[gem5-users] Re: SPEC CPU 2017 taking days to simulate > > Hi Markus, I would expect gem5 to be at least 10,000-100,000x slower than > your host. So, if it takes 100 seconds on the host, then I would expect > between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 seconds or more! That's 277-2770 hours or > 10-100 days!! > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > > *This Message Is From an External Sender* > > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > Hi Markus, > > > > I would expect gem5 to be at least 10,000-100,000x slower than your host. > So, if it takes 100 seconds on the host, then I would > expect between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 seconds or more! > > > > That's 277-2770 hours or 10-100 days!! > > > > BTW, I actually think a 10-100,000x slowdown is on the low side if you're > simulating multiple cores and/or using the out-of-order CPU model. > > > > In other words, running ref in gem5 to completion is not feasible :). > There are techniques like SimPoint and other sampling methodologies that > can help, but they come with tradeoffs, too. We're working to get some > resources available to easily use sampling methodologies as well. > > > > Cheers, > > Jason > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2022 at 10:19 AM Markus Bichl via gem5-users < > gem5-users@gem5.org> wrote: > > Dear gem5 users, > > > > I’m currently running SPEC CPU 2017 benchmarks. I was succesful creating a > SPEC CPU 2017 disk image from this tutorial: > https://gem5.googlesource.com/public/gem5-resources/+/refs/heads/stable/src/spec-2017/ > > > I used this image to start 3 benchmark runs on 3 different systems > (server instance, desktop computer, and my laptop) 2 days ago. All of the > systems have Intel Core/Xeon CPUs (but 5-7 years old), and 16 GBytes of > DDR4 RAM. > > At this time, CPU load is 100% on one core for each system, at least 5 > Gbytes of free memory. > > I started benchmarks using these commands: > > ./build/X86/gem5.fast > ./configs/example/gem5_library/x86-spec-cpu2017-benchmarks.py --image > /home//Projects/spec-2017/spec-2017-image/spec-2017 --partition 1 > --benchmark 625.x264_s --size ref > > ./build/X86/gem5.fast > ./configs/example/gem5_library/x86-spec-cpu2017-benchmarks.py --image > /home//Projects/spec-2017/spec-2017-image/spec-2017 --partition 1 > --benchmark 600.perlbench_s --size ref > > ./build/X86/gem5.fast > ./configs/example/gem5_library/x86-spec-cpu2017-benchmarks.py --image > /home//Projects/spec-2017/spec-2017-image/spec-2017 --partition 1 > --benchmark 502.gcc_r --size test > > > > I wanted to have the results as fast as possible, so I used gem5.fast, and > also tried the gcc benchmark with the test workload. > > As I do not see any progess on the benchmarks yet, I feel there is > something wrong. Is this a normal simulation time for SPEC CPU 2017 > benchmarks? Is it possible to track the progress of the simulations, even > with "m5.disableAllListeners()” enabled in the system configuration? > > A run of 600.perlbench_s using the ref workload directly on the host > system (server instance) took 181 seconds. > > Thanks a lot for your help! > > > > BR, > > Markus Bichl > > > > Student, Technische Universität Wien > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org > To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org > To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org >
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org
