ok I looked at the output and I think what is happening only 1 processor ie
being assigned to the benchmark, ragardless of what value i put. But I dont
know why this is happening. I type:
./build/ALPHA_SE/m5.opt configs/splash2/runsplash.py -n 4 -k 4 -b FFT
and still at the end of simulation using beta 4, it reports this:
1024 Complex Doubles
1 Processors
65536 Cache lines
16 Byte line size
4096 Bytes per page
if I use beta3, this is what is reported:
1024 Complex Doubles
4 Processors
65536 Cache lines
16 Byte line size
4096 Bytes per page
the line in the config script that invokes fft is:
class FFT(LiveProcess):
cwd = options.rootdir + '/kernels/fft'
executable = options.rootdir + '/kernels/fft/FFT'
cmd = 'FFT -p' + str(options.numcpus) + ' -m18'
If I do a print options.numcpus here, it correctly prints out "4". So n=4 is
definitely being passed onto fft.
I dont know why in beta 4, the correct numcpus is not being used by fft, or
some other benchmarks.
Any ideas?
Thanks for your help.
- Sujay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Reinhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "M5 users mailing list" <m5-users@m5sim.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [m5-users] sims with m5 beta4 - cache stats - any update on
this?
I don't recall what the output files are called... each benchmark is a
little different in splash. You're looking for the benchmark output
in addition to the m5 output... I'm guessing something bad happened
and the benchmark quit because it encountered an error.
On Nov 14, 2007 4:26 PM, Sujay Phadke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. Though I dont know what to look for, since there's nothing that I
have
changed since beta3. Which output files should I examine?
The benchmarks ends because m5 reports "target called exit()".
- Sujay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Reinhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "M5 users mailing list" <m5-users@m5sim.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [m5-users] sims with m5 beta4 - cache stats - any update on
this?
> Thanks, this is very interesting. Have you looked at the output from
> the benchmarks that are producing weird results? I'd say from those
> stats (and your comment that those benchmarks are finishing "extremely
> fast") that the real problem is that the benchmark is terminating
> early, before it even gets to forking off threads on the other CPUs,
> due to some error. Presumably the output is indicating what the
> problem is if you look in the right place.
>
> So there's still some problem with b4 if you weren't encountering that
> error in b3, but it's not that the cache statistics are broken.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> 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
