Re: [Gems-users] Performance evaluation of CMP with Ruby and Opal

["Lei Yang" <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mike. Any idea why processor 1 executed 150% more instructions than 
Opal specified? Why only processor 0 executed the right number of 
instructions?
Thanks,
Lei
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Marty" <mikem@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gems Users" <gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Performance evaluation of CMP with Ruby and Opal


> No, one Opal module is used for a multiprocessor simulation.
>
> --Mike
> > > [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 -----
> > > *From:* Liqun Cheng <liqun.cheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > *To:* Lei Yang <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >  *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 -----
> > > > *From:* Liqun Cheng <liqun.cheng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > *To:* Lei Yang <lya755@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Gems 
> > > > Users<gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > *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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.