Can you tell more about the changes that you made.
I think that the interconnect might generate different amount of
messages due to routing.
Also, I am surprised that running Ruby twice gave you exactly the same
result. It is surprising that the OS did not cause any randomizations.
-Niket
Lide Duan wrote:
Hello there,
I have got some confusion about Ruby running on the same checkpoint...
Basically I modified the routing algorithm utilized in the on-chip
interconnect of Ruby, and compared the output results with the
unmodified Ruby version. For both simulations, the checkpoint has been
run from one magic instruction to the other, implying the same amount
of work. I assumed that the msgs injected into the interconnect (from
the components) should be the same for both cases because the only
difference is the routing algorithm, which should not affect the
behaviors on the cache level since all the msgs finally arrive to
their corresponding destinations.
However, the numbers of the injected msgs of the two runs have 5%
difference, and the msgs generated in the interconnect (all of them
are Invalidate_Control, to my observation) have more the 10%
difference. The numbers of instructions of the two simulations are
also different (but not much) although the two runs were from the same
start point to the same end point.
On the other hand, if I run Ruby twice without making any modification
between the two runs (i.e. the same Ruby on the same workload), the
results are exactly the same. So I don't think there is any random
effect to cause the above difference. Then, are the results I have got
reasonable?
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.
|