Re: [Gems-users] Message Delayed Cycles

[Dan Gibson <degibson@xxxxxxxx>]

The only thought I can offer is that your change significantly affected the queuing contention for various links in the topology (wild guess).

Lei Yang wrote:

Dear list,

 

I noticed that after I made some change to the MSI_MOSI_CMP_directory protocol, the network delay cycles were significantly increased.

 

Below I'm pasting the virtual network 1 delay cycles of unmodified protocol and modified protocol. (Virtual network 1 is the network that connects the local l2s to the directory).

 

unmodified:

virtual_network_1_delay_cycles: [binsize: 1 max: 15 count: 330763 average: 1.18152 | standard deviation: 2.62497 | 274530 2 18 249 191 181 64 172 54618 276 116 23 38 9 29 8 41 ]

modified:

virtual_network_1_delay_cycles: [binsize: 4 max: 194 count: 289410 average: 9.86392 | standard deviation: 27.4408 | 216910
45290 453 237 12 49 34 41 40 447 44 54 48 43 70 29 110 87 76 119 85 34 11754 246 568 11396 230 894 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ]

Could anyone please tell me what is the dominant factor of message delay cycle?  For example, I changed the DIRECTORY_TRANSITION_PER_RUBY_CYCLE parameter from 32 to 256 in rubyconfig.defaults. Because my modifications introduced more message sent to the directory and I thought the number of requests that can be handled by the directory  in one cycle matters. However, this doesn't help at all. I would really appreciate any hint from you. Thanks in advance!

 

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.