> <mailto:
degibson@xxxxxxxx <mailto:
degibson@xxxxxxxx>>>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> My first guess is that your latency is
> cancelled by
> > >>> Ruby's periodic processing of its event
> queue. E.g. if
> > >>> you stall a request by 10 cycles in the
> sequencer,
> > then
> > >>> Ruby's event queue runs (to simulate the cache
> > >>> hierarchy) 2 cycles later, decides the
> request was a
> > >>> hit, and unstalls the processor, with a net
> stall time
> > >>> of just 2 cycles.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Dan
> > >>>
> > >>> Carole-Jean Wu wrote:
> > >>>> Hello GEMS-users,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I am running into a strange situation when
> > simulating a
> > >>>> multiprogrammed environment. To make the long
> > story short,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> in Sequencer.C's issueRequest, I am adding
> additional
> > >>>> latency to "latency" to mimic e.g. a cache hit,
> > >>>> latency+=10 and a cache miss, latency+=100.
> However,
> > >>>> when running two applications with great
> > differences on
> > >>>> miss ratio, I've find the same CPI in the
> > >>>> ruby0.dumpstat file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Can someone explain to me what is going
> wrong? Am I
> > >>>> inserting this additional latency in the
> wrong place?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Any help is greatly appreciated!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks a lot,
> > >>>> Carole
> > >>>>
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Gems-users mailing list
> > >>>>
Gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:
Gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > <mailto:
Gems-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
![[Computer Systems Lab]](http://www.cs.wisc.edu/pics/csl_logo.gif){kind=logo}