[gem5-users] Re: HPCG on RISCV
I'm going to need a bit more information to help: 1. In what way have you modified ./configs/example/gem5_library/riscv-fs.py? Can you attach the script here? 2. What error are you getting or in what way are the results invalid? - Dr. Bobby R. Bruce Room 3050, Kemper Hall, UC Davis Davis, CA, 95616 web: https://www.bobbybruce.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 1:43 PM Νικόλαος Ταμπουρατζής < ntampourat...@ece.auth.gr> wrote: > > Dear gem5 community, > > I have successfully cross-compile the HPCG benchmark for RISCV (Serial > version, without MPI and OpenMP). While it working properly in gem5 SE > mode (./build/RISCV/gem5.fast -d ./HPCG_SE_results > ./configs/example/se.py -c xhpcg --options '--nx=16 --ny=16 --nz=16 > --npx=1 --npy=1 --npz=1 --rt=0.1'), I get invalid results in FS > simulation using "./build/RISCV/gem5.fast -d ./HPCG_FS_results > ./configs/example/gem5_library/riscv-fs.py" (I mount the riscv image > and put it). > > Can you help me please? > > In addition, I used the RISCV Ubuntu image > (https://github.com/gem5/gem5-resources/tree/stable/src/riscv-ubuntu), > I installed the gcc compiler, compile it (through qemu) and I get > wrong results too. > > Here is the Makefile which I use, the hpcg executable for RISCV > (xhpcg), and a video that shows the results > (http://kition.mhl.tuc.gr:8000/f/4ca25fdd3c/). > > P.S. I use the latest gem5 version. > > Thank you in advance! :) > > Best regards, > Nikos > ___ > gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org > To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org > ___ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org
[gem5-users] Different simulation results on different computers with the same configuration
Thanks for answering my question ,but I don't think it's bue to random number libraries. I run the command with increasing injection rate with step=0.02. I run the same script and get the output as below on my new computer. average_packet_latency = 25.337632 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 25.437901 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 21.756217 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 22.113257 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 23.345574 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 23.661025 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 24.320524 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 24.179487 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 25.514403 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 26.073759 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 26.263281 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 26.547242 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.091405 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 26.297297 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.140832 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.789159 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 26.496507 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.239526 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.588123 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.579588 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 27.810236 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 28.613595 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 28.414169 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 28.499775 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 28.954376 (Unspecified) and my old computer's result is average_packet_latency = 15.510408 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 15.528615 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 15.682214 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 15.695504 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 15.769957 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 15.821728 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 15.912262 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 16.051925 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 16.167249 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 16.319634 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 16.479105 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 16.725313 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 17.055812 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 17.588959 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 18.500431 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 21.669417 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 103.241365 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 273.002675 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 430.695013 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 596.634683 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 732.220679 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 854.214438 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 969.032975 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 1087.468352 (Unspecified) average_packet_latency = 1207.588344 (Unspecified) Obviously,the old computer's result is reasonable. I really don't understand why there is such a stark difference.___ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org
[gem5-users] Re: [QUAR] Different simulation results on different computers with the same configuration
On 9/19/2022 10:04 PM, 2497597 wrote: Hello！I‘m a college student and I need to do some work with garnet. But I found a inexplicable problem recently. Command to Run: ./build/NULL/gem5.opt configs/example/garnet_synth_traffic.py \ --network=garnet \ --num-cpus=64 \ --num-dirs=64 \ --topology=Mesh_XY \ --mesh-rows=8 \ --sim-cycles=1 \ --inj-vnet=0 \ --injectionrate=0.02 \ --synthetic=uniform_random I run the above command with gem5-v21.2.1.0+ubuntu20.04. But,I get different simulation results on different computers with the same configuration(gem5-v21.2.1.0+ubuntu20.04). I just changed the computer... Different computers' random number libraries may act differently. Also, random number generator packages are usually set up to give a different random number sequence on each run, unless you specifically use them otherwise (by giving the same "seed" each time). Regards - EM ___ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org
[gem5-users] Different simulation results on different computers with the same configuration
Hello??I??m a college student and I need to do some work with garnet. But I found a inexplicable problem recently. Command to Run: ./build/NULL/gem5.opt configs/example/garnet_synth_traffic.py \ --network=garnet \ --num-cpus=64 \ --num-dirs=64 \ --topology=Mesh_XY \ --mesh-rows=8 \ --sim-cycles=1 \ --inj-vnet=0 \ --injectionrate=0.02 \ --synthetic=uniform_random I run the above command with gem5-v21.2.1.0+ubuntu20.04. But,I get different simulation results on different computers with the same configuration(gem5-v21.2.1.0+ubuntu20.04). I just changed the computer...___ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org
[gem5-users] HPCG on RISCV
Dear gem5 community, I have successfully cross-compile the HPCG benchmark for RISCV (Serial version, without MPI and OpenMP). While it working properly in gem5 SE mode (./build/RISCV/gem5.fast -d ./HPCG_SE_results ./configs/example/se.py -c xhpcg --options '--nx=16 --ny=16 --nz=16 --npx=1 --npy=1 --npz=1 --rt=0.1'), I get invalid results in FS simulation using "./build/RISCV/gem5.fast -d ./HPCG_FS_results ./configs/example/gem5_library/riscv-fs.py" (I mount the riscv image and put it). Can you help me please? In addition, I used the RISCV Ubuntu image (https://github.com/gem5/gem5-resources/tree/stable/src/riscv-ubuntu), I installed the gcc compiler, compile it (through qemu) and I get wrong results too. Here is the Makefile which I use, the hpcg executable for RISCV (xhpcg), and a video that shows the results (http://kition.mhl.tuc.gr:8000/f/4ca25fdd3c/). P.S. I use the latest gem5 version. Thank you in advance! :) Best regards, Nikos ___ gem5-users mailing list -- gem5-users@gem5.org To unsubscribe send an email to gem5-users-le...@gem5.org
