Some quick guesses:

* What version of M5 are you running? There were several cache bug  
fixes to b5, not just the one your pointed out. You really should be  
running the version in the repository.
* Are you using the tsb_osfpal from the website (or one you compiled  
yourself) as opposed to ts_osfpal?
* Is there a reason your switching to a detailed CPU in the middle of  
booting?

If I run your command line I get a lot further in the booting process  
before switching CPUs. With an atomic cpu (with or without caches) I  
can boot 64 processors to the prompt. I would try M5 in the repository  
and see if that solves the problem. If not comparing the atomic trace  
to the detailed timing trace would probably give you an idea about  
where it's going wrong.

Ali




On Jul 9, 2008, at 2:23 AM, Joel Hestness wrote:

> Hi,
>   I have built a couple of the PARSEC benchmarks to run under alpha- 
> linux and have a disk image set up with these binaries and input  
> files to run in M5 ALPHA_FS.  I have run the complete blackscholes  
> benchmark using 4 cores/4 threads with no problems.  Currently, I am  
> trying scale up the number of processors to 64.  Here is my command  
> line:
>
>     ------------------------
>     build/ALPHA_FS/m5.opt --outdir=$OUTDIR --trace-flags="Bus" -- 
> trace-start=1700000000000 --trace-file=$OUTDIR/tracelog.txt configs/ 
> joel/fs.py --detailed --caches --l2cache --num-cpus=64 --fast- 
> forward=80000000 --script=./configs/joel/parsec/blackscholes.rcS
>     ------------------------
>
>   The first shot at running this resulted in an assertion failure  
> that is documented in the mailing list thread: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00107.html 
> .  Based on the recommendation from this thread, I commented the  
> assertion, rebuilt M5 and reran the benchmark (I am not sure if this  
> is related to the next problem that I am having).  Now, the  
> benchmark fails with the following output:
>
>     ------------------------
>     Switched CPUS @ cycle = 28289857500
>     warn: Entering event queue @ 28289857500.  Starting simulation...
>     Changing memory mode to timing
>     switching cpus
>     **** REAL SIMULATION ****
>     warn: Entering event queue @ 28289858000.  Starting simulation...
>     panic: Halt not implemented!
>      @ cycle 28289931750
>     [halt:build/ALPHA_FS/cpu/o3/alpha/cpu.hh, line 108]
>     Program aborted at cycle 28289931750
>     Abort
>     ------------------------
>
>   Seems this is a result of a kernel panic.  Here are the last few  
> lines of console.system.sim_console (the whole file can be found @ 
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~hestness/links/console.system.sim_console) 
> :
>
>     ------------------------
>     [<fffffc0000311c60>] ret_from_fork+0x0/0x10
>     [<fffffc000033be34>] fork_idle+0x54/0xb0
>     [<fffffc0000345948>] cpu_callback+0xa8/0x1b0
>     [<fffffc000033be08>] fork_idle+0x28/0xb0
>     [<fffffc000031d858>] __cpu_up+0x38/0x360
>     [<fffffc0000310020>] __smp_callin+0x0/0x28
>     [<fffffc0000310020>] __smp_callin+0x0/0x28
>     Code: a4850018  20650018  408305a1  f4200008  a4430008  a43e0050  
> <b5a40008> b49e0050
>     Kernel panic - not syncing: Aiee, killing interrupt handler!
>     ------------------------
>
>   I have encountered this problem with both the kernel distributed  
> with M5, and the kernel that I have built (linux-2.6.16.53 using  
> gcc-4.0.2).  If anyone has encountered this or something similar, I  
> would really appreciate any help you can offer.
>   Thanks,
>   Joel
> _______________________________________________
> 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