On Dec 8 2009, Dan Gibson wrote:
>The other processors are probably spinning. Spinning tends to have great
>IPC.
>
>On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM, <
ubaid001@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I simulated a four core CMP system with both Opal and Ruby. In the
>> results.opal file the runtime stats for processor [0],[1],[2],[3], only
>> processor [0] executed 100 million instructions specified by
>> "opal0.sim-step 100000000", but processor [1] and [2] have more total
>> number of instructions than what I had specified.
>>
>> Even though only one core runs the required number of instructions, how
>> do
>> the other cores run so many more instructions (almost double the number
>> of
>> instructions specified). The configuration for all the processors are the
>> same. This leads to opal reporting a very high IPC for those processors.
>> e.g : P0 1.6, P1 3.96 , P2 3.97 etc.
>>
>> This is due to the fact the the number of cycles remain the same for all
>> processors.
>>
>> Am wondering if the high value of IPC reported is spurious. Can someone
>> shed more light on this?
>>
>> Suhail
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.