Re: [Gems-users] Understand the protocol trace

[Mike Marty <mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The second problem is because the number of L2 sets in
$GEMS/ruby/config/testconfig.defaults is set too low for the # of
processors.  Try increasing this to at least 1024 sets (10 bits)

--Mike


> I changed the network topology to PT_TO_PT and the cycle counts reduced.
> However I found a wierd problem: when I set g_NUM_PROCESSORS to 16 and
> g_PROCS_PER_CHIP to 1, 2, 4, or 8, the tester work fine; but when I set it
> to other values it reports assertion failure.
>
> For example, I tried the following combinations:
>
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 1 -a 1 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 4 -a 1 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 4 -a 2 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 4 -a 4 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 8 -a 1 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 8 -a 2 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 8 -a 4 -z
> little.trace
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 8 -a 8 -z
> little.trace
>
> They gave me this error:
>
> Testing clear stats...Done.
> Reading trace from file 'little.trace'...
> failed assertion 'index < m_size' at fn const TYPE& Vector<TYPE>::ref(int)
> const [with TYPE = AbstractChip*] in ../common/Vector.h:157
> failed assertion 'index < m_size' at fn const TYPE& Vector<TYPE>::ref(int)
> const [with TYPE = AbstractChip*] in ../common/Vector.h:157
> At this point you might want to attach a debug to the running and get to the
> crash site; otherwise press enter to continue
> PID: 3889
>
> I also tried this:
> x86-linux/generated/MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory/bin/tester.exec -p 16 -a 16 -z
> little.trace
>
> This gave me a seg fault:
>
> failed assertion 'L2_CACHE_NUM_SETS_BITS >=
> log_int(g_NUM_L2_BANKS_PER_CHIP)' at fn static void RubyConfig::init() in
> config/RubyConfig.C:123
> Segmentation fault
>
> Could somebody give me a hint on what is the problem? Thanks a lot!!
>
> Lei
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lei Yang" <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mike Marty" <mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gems Users" <gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Understand the protocol trace
>
>
> >I just found in the documentation that PT_TO_PT and FILE_SPECIFIED are the
> > recommended network topologies for the CMP protocols.  Will give that a
> > try.
> >
> > Lei
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Marty" <mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Lei Yang" <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gems Users"
> > <gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Understand the protocol trace
> >
> >
> >> 1)  Turn off RANDOMIZATION in $GEMS/ruby/config/testerconfig.defaults.
> >> This randomly adds 100+ cycle delays to generate race conditions
> >>
> >> 2)  You are probably using a non-CMP topology and NETWORK_LINK_LATENCY is
> >> fairly high.
> >>
> >> --Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear list,
> >>>
> >>> I was experimenting with MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory protocol with the
> >>> tester.
> >>> With the little.trace on GEMS online documentation
> >>> http://www.cs.wisc.edu/gems/doc/wiki/moin.cgi/How_do_I_understand_a_Protocol ,
> >>> below is the protocol trace I got:
> >>>
> >>> Testing clear stats...Done.
> >>> Reading trace from file 'little.trace'...
> >>>       1   7  -1        Seq               Begin       >       [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>       4   1   3    L1Cache                Load     NP>L1_IS  [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>     141   1   0    L2Cache             L1_GETS  L2_NP>L2_IS  [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>     390   0   0  Directory                GETS     NP>S      [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>     635   1   0    L2Cache      Data_ext_ack_0  L2_IS>L2_SS  [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1097   7  -1        Seq                Done       >       [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400] 1096 cycles NULL Yes
> >>>    1097   1   3    L1Cache             L1_Data  L1_IS>L1_S   [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1101   1  -1        Seq               Begin       >       [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1104   0   1    L1Cache                Load     NP>L1_IS  [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1139   0   0    L2Cache             L1_GETS  L2_NP>L2_IS  [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1176   0   0  Directory                GETS      S>S      [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1309   0   0    L2Cache      Data_ext_ack_0  L2_IS>L2_SS  [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>    1445   1  -1        Seq                Done       >       [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400] 344 cycles NULL Yes
> >>>    1445   0   1    L1Cache             L1_Data  L1_IS>L1_S   [0x400,
> >>> line
> >>> 0x400]
> >>>
> >>> According to the documentation, the first column indicates the cycle. I
> >>> don't understand why the operation cycles are so large. In my
> >>> configuration,
> >>>
> >>> MEMORY_RESPONSE_LATENCY_MINUS_2: 78
> >>> DIRECTORY_LATENCY: 80
> >>> L2_RESPONSE_LATENCY: 6
> >>> L1_RESPONSE_LATENCY: 3
> >>> L1_REQUEST_LATENCY: 2
> >>> L2_REQUEST_LATENCY: 4
> >>> NETWORK_LINK_LATENCY: 40
> >>>
> >>> I don't understand why the cache operations would add up to, 1096 cycles
> >>> for the first LD as an example. Could someone explain this please? By
> >>> the
> >>> way, in the ruby config file, there is a TIMER_LATENCY: 10000. I wonder
> >>> what this is.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks a lot! I appreciate your comments.
> >>>
> >>> Lei
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gems-users mailing list
> > Gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/gems-users
> > Use Google to search the GEMS Users mailing list by adding
> > "site:https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/gems-users/"; to your search.
> >
>
>