We'll be happy to have you in the present though.  We'd also love for
you to keep current and send us diffs!

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Geoffrey Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll try re-cloning the tree and re-applying the TM patches I have to see if
>  it is just my older version of M5 in a few hours.  Not looking forward to
>  the merge I'll have to do....
>
>  Geoff
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>
>
> Behalf Of nathan binkert
>  Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 10:40 PM
>  To: M5 users mailing list
>  Subject: Re: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints
>
>  I haven't looked at the checkpoint code in the committed M5 scripts in
>  a while, but there's a chance that things are wrong there. There is
>  now a requirement to drain the cpus/caches before you checkpoint for
>  the timing mode stuff.  As for the atomic mode, that's odd.  Can you
>  give me enough detail to reproduce this myself?  I'd most prefer
>  something against the head of the tree.
>
>  There might have been problems with the tree.  I personally don't recall.
>
>
>   Nate
>
>  2008/3/25 Geoffrey Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Hmmmm, something is broken, I've been trying and nothing seems to work.  I
>  > can't dump a timing_cpu checkpoint, because reloading it causes M5 to
>  crash
>  > on initialization, certain serialization elements are missing.  When I
>  dump
>  > an atomic cpu checkpoint of the same benchmark, I can load it, but the
>  > kernel immediately panics and crashes.  Any ideas?  Was checkpointing
>  broken
>  > prior to 2.0b5?
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Thanks,
>  >
>  > Geoff
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>  > Behalf Of Geoffrey Blake
>  >  Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:31 PM
>  >
>  >  To: 'M5 users mailing list'
>  >  Subject: RE: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > I'm pretty sure its loading the correct checkpoints.  What is really odd
>  is
>  > if I load the atomic CPU checkpoint with Atomic CPU, it still crashed with
>  a
>  > page handler error. I'll keep fiddling, perhaps the serialization routines
>  > are broken on my build. I'm using a version of M5 from the repository that
>  > is older than 2.0b5, I should probably pull again to get the new changes.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Geoff
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>  > Behalf Of Lisa Hsu
>  >  Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:19 PM
>  >  To: M5 users mailing list
>  >  Subject: Re: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > i had this happen to me when i was dumping atomic && timing checkpoints
>  into
>  > the same directory, and specifying checkpoint 1 - but it would read the
>  > wrong one and give me that exact error because it was reading the first
>  > checkpoint (an atomic checkpoint) rather than the first timing checkpoint.
>  > if you're doing the same, you'll want to separate them.
>  >
>  >  lisa
>  >
>  >
>  > 2008/3/25 Geoffrey Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > I'm trying to dump out a checkpoint of multi-core system using Full System
>  > to allow me to run a profile of the binaries I'm running in M5. I dump the
>  > checkpoint using the m5 pseudo instruction from inside the application.
>  The
>  > checkpoint though seems malformed.  If I dump it out running with timing
>  > simple cpu, the checkpoint will not load, the simulator crashes with a
>  fatal
>  > error saying it cannot read _status for system.cpuXX.  I've tried making
>  > checkpoints using the atomic CPU, and they seem load fine, but immediately
>  > after starting to run once the checkpoint is loaded, the binary crashes
>  with
>  > a kernel page handling error, perhaps due to the fact it does not save any
>  > ITB entries.  Is there something I am forgetting?
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Geoff
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  >  Checked by AVG.
>  >  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date:
>  3/25/2008
>  > 10:26 AM
>  >
>  >
>  >  _______________________________________________
>  >  m5-users mailing list
>  >  [email protected]
>  >  http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>  >  Checked by AVG.
>  >  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date:
>  3/25/2008
>  > 10:26 AM
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  >  Checked by AVG.
>  >  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date:
>  3/25/2008
>  > 10:26 AM
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this incoming message.
>  >  Checked by AVG.
>  >  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date:
>  3/25/2008
>  > 10:26 AM
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  >  Checked by AVG.
>  >  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date:
>  3/25/2008
>  > 10:26 AM
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  >  m5-users mailing list
>  >  [email protected]
>  >  http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  m5-users mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date: 3/25/2008
>  10:26 AM
>
>
>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date: 3/25/2008
>  10:26 AM
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  m5-users mailing list
>  [email protected]
>  http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users

Reply via email to