Re: [Gems-users] A question on ruby tester

["Lei Yang" <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe our source is different... I'm using gems release 1.3.1. Below is how "begin" and "done" is printed in my Sequencer.C.

line 550:      

 

g_system_ptr->getProfiler()->profileTransition("Seq", (m_chip_ptr->getID()*RubyConfig::numberOfProcsPerChip() + m_version), -1, msg.getAddress(), "", "Begin", "", "");

 

line 370:

 

 g_system_ptr->getProfiler()->profileTransition("Seq", (m_chip_ptr->getID()*RubyConfig::numberOfProcsPerChip()+m_version), -1, request.getAddress(), "", "Done", "",
                                                   int_to_string(miss_latency)+" cycles "+GenericMachineType_to_string(respondingMach)+" "+PrefetchBit_to_string(request.getPrefetch()));

 

I think they are both using CacheMsg::getAddress(), when that is printed out, first shows word address, then the line address. Or, did I looked at the wrong place, are these lines outputing to debug trace though? In any event, I hope you are right because this does seem like a code consistency issue.

 

Lei

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mike Marty" <mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To: "Lei Yang" <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gems Users" <gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:35 PM

Subject: Re: [Gems-users] A question on ruby tester

> Well I just looked at the code in Sequencer.C for printing the 
trace.
> When it prints the Sequencer "Begin", it converts to the line 
address.
> See line 441 of Sequencer.C (assuming my tree is still current 
with the
> released Sequencer).
> 
> It prints the "Done" in a 
completely different part of the code and I
> don't see the line_addrses 
pulled out.
> 
> I think it is code consistency.
> 
> 
--Mike
> 
> Lei Yang wrote:
>> That sounds reasonable. But 
in this line,
>>
>> 12689 0 -1 Seq Done > [0x34ea, line 
0x34c0] 1867 cycles NULL No
>>
>> it shows first the actual 
address, then the aligned block address. So
>> the traces does print 
word address too. It doesn't seem to me that
>> this is a code 
consistency problem. Is it possible that there is a bug
>> in the 
sequencer? I'm just curious.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 
Lei
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mike Marty" 
<mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: 
"Lei Yang" <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:21 PM
>> 
Subject: Re: [Gems-users] A question on ruby 
tester
>>
>>
>> > It is the same block cache 
block. It is probably just inconsistent code
>> > that prints the 
word address in one spot and the block address in
>> 
another.
>> >
>> > --Mike
>> >
>> 
> Lei Yang wrote:
>> >> Thank you Mike. Did you mean 
g_SEQUENCER_OUTSTANDING_REQUESTS? I made
>> >> that 1 but still 
have the same problem. I guess I don't understand
>> in the
>> 
>> first place why in cycle 10624 the request address is 0xdc0 but 
the
>> >> deadlock complains about 0xdee?
>> >> 
Thanks a lot!
>> >> Lei
>> >> ----- Original 
Message -----
>> >>
>> >> *From:* Mike Marty 
<mailto:mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> *To:* 'Lei Yang' <mailto:lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
; 'Gems
>> >> Users' <mailto:gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:22 
PM
>> >> *Subject:* RE: [Gems-users] A question on ruby 
tester
>> >>
>> >> A couple more tips:
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> Take a look at the 
PROTOCOL_DEBUG_TRACE. See if there is another
>> >> block that 
has failed. If too many requests are outstanding, the
>> >> 
sequencer will start the request but there are no available
>> >> 
resources to handle it.
>> >>
>> >> There is a 
section on the Wiki on using the trace output.
>> >>
>> 
>>
>> >> When first debugging a protocol, change 
g_OUTSTANDING_REQUESTS to
>> >> 1 until that works.
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> --Mike
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original 
Message-----
>> >> *From:* gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> [mailto:gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of 
*Lei Yang
>> >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:18 
PM
>> >> *To:* Gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> *Subject:* [Gems-users] A question on ruby tester
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> Hello everyone,
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> I am using Ruby tester to 
verify my cache coherence protocol and
>> >> found a weird 
problem. Basically I got this error message of
>> >> possible 
deadlock:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 
Warning: in fn virtual void Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> 
system/Sequencer.C:121: Possible Deadlock detected
>> >> Warning: 
in fn virtual void Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> 
system/Sequencer.C:122: request is [CacheMsg: Address=[0xdee, line
>> 
>> 0xdc0]
>> >> Type=ATOMIC ProgramCounter=[0xf0, line 
0xc0]
>> >> AccessMode=SupervisorMode Size=1 Prefetch=No 
Version=0 Aborted=0
>> >> Time=10624 ]
>> >> 
Warning: in fn virtual void Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> 
system/Sequencer.C:123: m_chip_ptr->getID() is 2
>> >> 
Warning: in fn virtual void Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> 
system/Sequencer.C:124: m_version is 0
>> >> Warning: in fn 
virtual void Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> system/Sequencer.C:125: 
current_time is 1000002
>> >> Warning: in fn virtual void 
Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> system/Sequencer.C:126: 
request.getTime() is 10624
>> >> Warning: in fn virtual void 
Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> system/Sequencer.C:127: current_time 
- request.getTime() is 989378
>> >> Warning: in fn virtual void 
Sequencer::wakeup() in
>> >> system/Sequencer.C:128: keys.size() 
is 16
>> >> Warning: in fn virtual void Sequencer::wakeup() 
in
>> >> system/Sequencer.C:129: *m_writeRequestTable_ptr is [ 
[0xdc0, line
>> >> 0xdc0]=
>> >>
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> I searched for address 0xdee 
and it appears NO where in the output
>> >> trace. Then I went to 
request time 10624 and saw this:
>> >>
>> >> 10624 
2 -1 Seq Begin > [0xdc0,
>> >> line 0xdc0]
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> After this line there is no 
occurance of 0xdc0. It appears to me
>> >> that after the request 
on 0xdc0 is issued by the sequencer,
>> >> nothing else was done. 
I don't even know wheter it is instruction
>> >> read or 
load/store. Then somehow it leads to a deadlock. Could
>> >> 
anyone please give me a hint on how might I find out the problem?
>> 
>>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you very 
much!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 
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.
>>
>>   
> 
>