Just to update this, I figured out my problem and it was user error.  I kept
trying to checkpoint with caches enabled, just tried checkpointing without
caches it works now.  Thanks for all the help though Nate.

Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of nathan binkert
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:45 PM
To: M5 users mailing list
Subject: Re: [m5-users] Full System Checkpoints

Ok, mq is just fine.  I wanted to make sure that you were using
something though.  It's actually possible to check in the .hg/patches
directory and put that under revision control.  I do this for some of
my stuff.


  Nate


> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
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: 269.22.3/1354 - Release Date: 4/1/2008
5:38 AM
 

_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users

Reply via email to