Yes it is using AtomicSimpleCPU. Do you want me to check with timing CPU
(should it make a difference)?
Also, I am surprised that there are differences in the total # of
instructions.
eg: simulating FFT in SE mode under beta 3 and 4
# instructions:
beta3 beta4
Lunoncontig 9517399 9389288
Barnes 3704144329 3704147106
Why should the # of instructions be different? In fact, every statistic
(which should be simulator independent) is coming out different, for any >
benchmark.
Some more questions:
----------------------
question about remote_gdb listener in beta 4:
How do I use this? I thought i'd work similar to opening up a term when we
simulate in FS mode: compile m5term, do >m5term <port number>. Here I did:
> >m5term 7000.
On the main screen, it shows connecting console, but the term program just
hangs. There's no output there. If I press <enter>, it just shows some
garbage and hangs.
another question on the side: What does the line at the top: "import
Simulation", in the config script do? (when running in SE mode) Even if I
dont have that line in my config script, my simulation is still running by
doing m5.simulate(...) instead of doing Simulation.run(...). So does
including that line do anything more than just this?
same with:
from Caches import *
My sims are working without this, so what does this line do?
Thanks,
Sujay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Reinhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "M5 users mailing list" <m5-users@m5sim.org>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [m5-users] sims with m5 beta4 - cache stats
That is odd... the coherence protocol's a little different, but not
that different. Is this using atomic mode?
Steve
On 11/9/07, Sujay Phadke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I am running splash2 benchmarks, with the same configuration in
m5
beta 3 and 4. Here is a snapshot of the m5stats.txt for overall l2
stats.
With Beta 4:
-------------------
system.l2.overall_accesses 8683
# number of overall (read+write) accesses
system.l2.overall_avg_miss_latency 0
# average overall miss latency
system.l2.overall_avg_mshr_miss_latency <err: div-0>
# average overall mshr miss latency
system.l2.overall_avg_mshr_uncacheable_latency <err: div-0>
# average overall mshr uncacheable latency
system.l2.overall_hits 2560
# number of overall hits
system.l2.overall_miss_latency 0
# number of overall miss cycles
system.l2.overall_miss_rate 0.705171
# miss rate for overall accesses
system.l2.overall_misses 6123
# number of overall misses
system.l2.overall_mshr_hits 0
# number of overall MSHR hits
system.l2.overall_mshr_miss_latency 0
# number of overall MSHR miss cycles
system.l2.overall_mshr_miss_rate 0
# mshr miss rate for overall accesses
system.l2.overall_mshr_misses 0
# number of overall MSHR misses
system.l2.overall_mshr_uncacheable_latency 0
# number of overall MSHR uncacheable cycles
system.l2.overall_mshr_uncacheable_misses 0
# number of overall MSHR uncacheable misses
With beta 3:
------------------
system.l2.overall_accesses 1076225
# number of overall (read+write) accesses
system.l2.overall_avg_miss_latency 0
# average overall miss latency
system.l2.overall_avg_mshr_miss_latency <err: div-0>
# average overall mshr miss latency
system.l2.overall_avg_mshr_uncacheable_latency <err: div-0>
# average overall mshr uncacheable latency
system.l2.overall_hits 477093
# number of overall hits
system.l2.overall_miss_latency 0
# number of overall miss cycles
system.l2.overall_miss_rate 0.556698
# miss rate for overall accesses
system.l2.overall_misses 599132
# number of overall misses
system.l2.overall_mshr_hits 0
# number of overall MSHR hits
system.l2.overall_mshr_miss_latency 0
# number of overall MSHR miss cycles
system.l2.overall_mshr_miss_rate 0
# mshr miss rate for overall accesses
system.l2.overall_mshr_misses 0
# number of overall MSHR misses
system.l2.overall_mshr_uncacheable_latency 0
# number of overall MSHR uncacheable cycles
system.l2.overall_mshr_uncacheable_misses 0
# number of overall MSHR uncacheable misses
With beta 4, it seems that the number of accesses are lesser, cache
hits/misses are different. All other parameters have been kept the same
(num_cpus, L1, L2 sizes, DRAM size, etc).
Why this difference?
- Sujay
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
_______________________________________________
m5-users mailing list
m5-users@m5sim.org
http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/m5-users
