I commit them using hg qrefresh.  I don't think I actually have hg tracking
the changes to the patch file though.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of nathan binkert
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:18 PM
To: M5 users mailing list
Subject: Re: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints

I'll take a look.  Do you actually commit your changes to your local
tree?  If you don't I highly recommend that you do.

  Nate

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Geoffrey Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the patch file mercurial generates for me.
>
>  A sample command line would be:
>
>  m5.opt fs.py -b <benchmark> -t -n 16 --caches --l2cache -r 1
>
>  I am using different kernel images that know the system has TM support,
but
>  at the moment I don't think those are causing the issue, it seems much
more
>  general right now because I can't even run the checkpoint for more than a
>  few cycles before it dies.  I dump the checkpoint from within the binary.
>
>
>  Geoff
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>  Behalf Of nathan binkert
>
>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:32 AM
>  To: M5 users mailing list
>  Subject: Re: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints
>
>  If you send me a URL to your repository or a full diff and some
>  command lines, I can take a look at it.
>
>   Nate
>
>  On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Geoffrey Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>  > Ok, pulled the latest M5, and ported over. Unfortunately TM doesn't
work
>  >  again, looks like some the memory model has changed since I last got
it
>  >  working.
>  >
>  >  But in terms of checkpoints, they still don't work for me.  I have no
>  idea
>  >  why now.  They either fail to load (if I dump a checkpoint running in
>  timing
>  >  mode), or load (atomic cpu dump), but immediately have some form of
error
>  >  when simulating.  Could it be all the additions I've made? Extra
>  registers
>  >  and such for TM?  I don't see why that would cause problems with
>  >  serialization, since the point I checkpoint at it doesn't matter
whether
>  the
>  >  new stuff is saved or not.
>  >
>  >
>  >  Geoff
>  >
>  >  -----Original Message-----
>  >  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
>  >  Behalf Of nathan binkert
>  >
>  >
>  > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:02 PM
>  >  To: M5 users mailing list
>  >  Subject: Re: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints
>  >
>  >  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
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >  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



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

Reply via email to