<
kaisopos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> thnaks for your help Dan!
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Dan Gibson <
degibson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As I said before, this is expected. Instruction counts are not often useful
>> measures for multiprocessor and/or full-system simulations.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dan
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Konstantinos Aisopos <
kaisopos@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the quick respose Dan! All my simulations have the same
>>> random seed (g_RANDOM_SEED: 1). I know that I should have
>>> randomization enabled and run many simulations to get accurate
>>> results, but currently I am avoiding it for simlicity.
>>> The thing that troubles me most is that *ALL* splash specs in
>>> MOESI_SMP have 500%-800% the number of instructions in MESI_SCMP. If I
>>> would see such big differences in the instruction count but random, I
>>> wouldn't bring up this question. Any additional thought you may have
>>> please let me know. If it still seems normal to you also let me know
>>> :)
>>>
>>> thanks for your time!
>>> -Kostas
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Dan Gibson <
degibson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > You should expect instruction count to vary widely even with the same
>>> > protocol for different RANDOM_SEED, because of spinloops.
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Dan
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Konstantinos Aisopos
>>> > <
kaisopos@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> hi all,
>>> >>
>>> >> I am running splash specs in MESI_SCMP and MOESI_SMP and observing the
>>> >> following: Ruby_cycles are in the same order of magnitute (+- 20%).
>>> >> However, instructions in MOESI_SMP = (~800%) instructions in
>>> >> MESI_SCMP. How can the same specs with the same inputs generate 8x
>>> >> more instructions in a different protocol? (roughly the same
>>> >> proportion for all splash specs). Is the variable
>>> >> *instruction_executed* trustworthy? Should I use another variable to
>>> >> measure instruction count?
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks,
>>> >> Kostas
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
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.