Unfortunately it's not quite that easy. The VectorParam automatically
converts a singleton to a single element list, so the only way to make
this happen is define a new VectorParam class that doesn't do the
coercion and use it for the command. Another option would be to check
the parameter in C++ for spaces, although technically an application
can have spaces in their name.
Ali
On Nov 15, 2007, at 5:05 AM, Gabriel Michael Black wrote:
Since this seems like an easy mistake to make (I think even the
example
or regression scripts were wrong in this way at one point) it might
make
sense to put in a check like:
if isInstance(cmd, string):
# Die horrible death
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
Good catch, thanks... but then how did it work correctly in b3? Did
that change recently?
On Nov 15, 2007 12:42 AM, Ali Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The args are fine, you're just passing the arguments to m5
incorrectly. The command should be an array of strings (like argv)
not
one big string. So changing the cmd line to: cmd = ['FFT', '-p',
str(options.numcpus), ' -m18'] should fix the problem.
Ali
On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Gabe Black wrote:
I don't remember changing anything having to do with Alpha
process
initialization other than the changes I made to paging, aka TLBs
in SE
mode and everything that went with it. I don't want to say for sure
that
I didn't since it was a fairly long time between b3 and b4, but I
would
be surprised if I did.
Gabe
Steve Reinhardt wrote:
Interesting... from what you're reporting, it sounds like the
problem
is likely in the code that sets up the stack (argv, argc, and all
that
good stuff). That's in LiveProcess::argsInit() in sim/
process.cc. I
don't know what if anything has changed in there from b3 to b4
though... I don't recall touching it, but Gabe might have.
The next step would be to put a breakpoint in that function and
see
if
the argv array really does have the right number of entries, and
that
the entries point to the arg strings.
Steve
On Nov 14, 2007 10:36 PM, Sujay Phadke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
A typo. In beta, the number of complex doubles reported is:
262144 Complex
Doubles, which is correct since it should be 2^18. (the -m18
switch passes
this value).
So it there some problem passing these values to the benchmarks
(atleast in
SE mode in beta4?) HAs something is parameter passing changed
between beta 3
and beta 4?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sujay Phadke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "M5 users mailing list" <m5-users@m5sim.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: [m5-users] sims with m5 beta4 - cache stats - any
update on
this?
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
