I am using Simics2.2.19 + GEMS1.4, and simulating sarek target machine running Solaris9 OS. I also verified in the Simics command line, there are only phys_mem0.xxx commands. So I think there is only one phys_mem, i.e. phys_mem0. Then what might be the problem?
Lide
On 8/24/07, Dan Gibson <degibson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which version of Simics are you using, and what is your target machine?
My initial thought is that there are more than one phys_mem* objects, and Ruby is only attaching itself to phys_mem0 (in Simics 2.x/Sarek
target, there is _ONLY_ phys_mem0). However, with some other versions of Simics and/or different target machines, there are sometimes phys_mem objects for EACH cpu -- verify that you only have one phys_mem* object
(via the Simics command line), and that its name is phys_mem0.
Regards, Dan
Lide Duan wrote: > I found something strange when looking at the ruby stats output files. > I am simulating some 16p checkpoints. If I place all the 16p on a
> single chip (g_PROCS_PER_CHIP 16), the results related to cache misses > are shown as follow: > > Total_misses: 2537939 > total_misses: 2537939 [ 2537939 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]
> user_misses: 1763423 [ 1763423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] > supervisor_misses: 774516 [ 774516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] > > I suppose the 16 numbers in the brackets correspond to the misses on
> each processor, but as we can see only misses on the 1st processor > were observed. On the other hand, I also got the followings: > > instruction_executed: 1322569080 [ 82094180 83437607 81021513 81093394
> 82632809 122205588 82083483 80671650 81138678 80191395 79408095 > 79763896 81353502 81528474 62244475 81700341 ] > cycles_per_instruction: 4.63392 [ 4.66589 4.59077 4.72767 4.72348 > 4.63548 3.13441
4.6665 4.74817 4.72084 4.77661 4.82372 4.80221 4.70837 > 4.69827 6.15384 4.68839 ] > misses_per_thousand_instructions: 1.91895 [ 30.915 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 ] > > So definitely all the processors were running something, but why were
> the misses on the 1st processor observed only? > > To address this problem, I tried different configurations. If I place > the processors on 4 chips each containing 4p, the first 4 numbers in
> the total_misses brackets are not zeros. Also, if one processor on one > chip (totally 16 chips), all the 16 numbers are not zeros. Therefore, > I guess the numbers indicate the misses on each CHIP, not each
> processor. Am I right? or did I miss something here? Actually I tried > different workloads with different network topologies, but got the > similar results. Can anybody give me some explanation? >
> Thanks, > Lide > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > >
-- http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~gibson
[esc]:wq!
_______________________________________________ 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.
|