Thanks Liqun. I see. Indeed Ruby cycles is half of
the Opal cycles. However, I found in results.opal similar stats for
[0][1][2][3], are they meant for each processor (since in my system I simulated
four CPUs)? But as can be seen from below, how come [1] and [2] have more
total number of instructions than what I've specified by "C
100000000" ?
Is there a documentation of how to read the opal
and ruby dump stats?
Thanks a lot!
Lei
[1] *** Runtime statistics: [1]
Total number of
instructions
255117523 [1] Total number of
cycles
64421882 [1] number of continue
calls
255117523 [1] Instruction per
cycle:
3.96011 [1] Total Elapsed
Time:
36060 sec 0 usec [1] Total Retirement
Time:
3740 sec 262608 usec [1] Approximate cycle per
sec:
1786.52 [1] Approximate instructions per
sec:
7074.79 [1] This processor's Simics overhead
(retire/elapsed): 10.37% [1] Average number of instructions
per continue
1.00
[2] *** Runtime statistics: [2]
Total number of
instructions
256142056 [2] Total number of
cycles
64421882 [2] number of continue
calls
256142056 [2] Instruction per
cycle:
3.97601 [2] Total Elapsed
Time:
36060 sec 0 usec [2] Total Retirement
Time:
3713 sec 458821 usec [2] Approximate cycle per
sec:
1786.52 [2] Approximate instructions per
sec:
7103.2 [2] This processor's Simics overhead
(retire/elapsed): 10.30% [2] Average number of instructions
per continue
1.00
[3] *** Runtime statistics: [3]
Total number of
instructions
40012500 [3] Total number of
cycles
64421882 [3] number of continue
calls
40012500 [3] Instruction per
cycle:
0.621101 [3] Total Elapsed
Time:
36060 sec 0 usec [3] Total Retirement
Time:
600 sec 825168 usec [3] Approximate cycle per
sec:
1786.52 [3] Approximate instructions per
sec:
1109.61 [3] This processor's Simics overhead
(retire/elapsed): 1.67% [3] Average number of
instructions per continue
1.0
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:11
PM
Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Performance
evaluation of CMP with Ruby and Opal
[0] *** Runtime statistics: [0]
Total number of
instructions
100000003
This is the number of instructions graduated,
specified by "C 100000000"
[0] Total number of
cycles
64421882
This is the opal cycles, if OPAL_RUBY_MULTIPLIER is 1, then
this number should be equal to ruby cycles. But by default,
OPAL_RUBY_MULTIPLIER is 2, so opal cycles should be twice of ruby cycles.
hope this helps. Liqun
[0] number of continue
calls
100000003 [0] Instruction per
cycle:
1.55227 [0] Total Elapsed
Time:
36060 sec 0 usec [0] Total Retirement
Time:
1522 sec 670804 usec [0] Approximate cycle per
sec:
1786.52 [0] Approximate instructions per
sec:
2773.15 [0] This processor's Simics overhead
(retire/elapsed): 4.22% [0] Average number of
instructions per
continue
1.00
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:52 PM
Subject:
Re: [Gems-users] Performance evaluation of CMP with Ruby and Opal
Just my 2 cents.
1. The simulation is very very slow and it
seems impossible to run the entire benchmark. 10 million cycles cost me
more than one hour. Although I can specify warm up length, it is best to
cover the entire life span of the benchmark. Has anyone tried to use
a sampling approach? I guess it's OK to wait on the completion of
the entire benchmark when producing final performance numbers, but it
certainly is a pain whenever there is modification to the code
and we want to see how it affects the performance. GEMS users, how
do you handle this problem?
Most studies use Opal only in the
sensitivity analysis, say run for 100M instructions. You might consider
use the techniques in SMARTS. I vaguely remember CMU folks have released
this in SimFlex.
2. Exactly what performance number should I
look at to compare two systems, when both Opal and Ruby are used. I saw
on FAQ that one should use Ruby_cycles to measure the
runtime of the simulated system. But when I let Opal run the same number
of cycles, shouldn't Ruby_cycles be the same for both? If not,
why?
Opal shows how many
instructions graduated, not cycles.
Liqun
I appreciate your comments!
Thanks,
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.
|