Re: [Gems-users] Simics 2.2 vs Simics 3.0 statistics difference

["Berkin Ozisikyilmaz" <boz283@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I was trying Phil's idea of creating a checkpoint after applications start
running and then load ruby/opal and simulate for 100mil instructions. I get
this error when using Simics 3.0 (which hadn?t occurred for the same
scenario with simics2.2), which I have seen previously and don?t know the
exact meaning (I am restarting the simulation but I think this error will
occur again). 

memoryBits: 0 memorySizeBits: 29 Address: [0xff164000, line
0xff164000]error: limit exceeded.  dataBlockBits: 6 memoryModuleBlocks:
8388608 index: 66869504
failed assertion 'index < RubyConfig::memoryModuleBlocks()' at fn integer_t
Address::memoryModuleIndex() const in common/Address.h:210
failed assertion 'index < RubyConfig::memoryModuleBlocks()' at fn integer_t
Address::memoryModuleIndex() const in common/Address.h:210
At this point you might want to attach a debug to the running and get to the
crash site; otherwise press enter to continue
PID: 7241

Abort (SIGABRT) in main thread
The simulation state has been corrupted. Simulation cannot continue.
Please restart Simics.
Starting command line. (May have skipped commands in script files.)


-----Original Message-----
From: gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dan Gibson
Sent: 2009-03-09 10:34
To: Gems Users
Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Simics 2.2 vs Simics 3.0 statistics difference

Try this with Ruby only.
Verify both stats files show similar instruction fetch statistics.

Regards,
Dan

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Philip Garcia <pcgarcia@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> the c 200000000 might be causing problems between the two versions of
> simics.  Try launching the simulation (in simics only) in 2.2, and
> after the 200M cycles (or more if you want, this should go fast), save
> a checkpoint.  Then load that same checkpoint with simics/gems for
> both the 2.2 and 3.0 case.  That way you know all processors are
> starting at the exact same point in each situation.
>
> Phil
> On Mar 8, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Berkin Ozisikyilmaz wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am first launching the applications and continuing 200million
>> instructions
>> which seem to be enough to get the applications running. Yes for this
>> testing I am running 100million, and aware that it might not be long
>> enough
>> to be representative. I am using a quad-core machine and it takes
>> 16-24
>> hours to run only this 100million instructions (its just a side note
>> regarding the performance). So according to the performance of the
>> current
>> simulations 2billion instruction execution will take ~20x20hours=400
>> hours
>> about 17 days just for a configuration. Is this reasonable?
>>
>> I have run the same script multiple times on Simics 2.2 and currently
>> running them under Simics 3.0. The results from the simics 2.2 are
>> exactly
>> the same in between themselves. I have copied the disk image,
>> checkpoint,
>> scripts from my Simics2.2 directory to 3.0. Both Simics and Gems are
>> compiled with the same compiler.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Berkin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> ]
>> On Behalf Of Philip Garcia
>> Sent: 2009-03-08 18:13
>> To: Gems Users
>> Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Simics 2.2 vs Simics 3.0 statistics
>> difference
>>
>> It appears that you are launching your jobs when you have ruby and
>> opal loaded, and therefore measuring both the execution time of your
>> jobs and the OS overhead of getting the jobs ready to execute.   If
>> simics 2.2 and simics 3.0 are not starting at the exact same point in
>> time, this alone will cause large variabilities in your execution
>> time.  Personally, I recommend getting all programs you want to
>> execute started and executing before you start measuring with simics/
>> opal.    In addition, it appears that you're only running gems for 100
>> million cycles.  If workloads are not at the same point in time, this
>> is likely not long enough of a sample to be representative of the
>> programs you are attempting to measure.  Have you ensured that all
>> your applications have reached the same point in each test?  Also, do
>> they both use the same default simics configuration files?  There are
>> many parameters that could cause such a large discrepancy in run times
>> for such short tests.  In my experience runs between simics 2.2 and
>> 3.0 have experienced some variability (when issued from the same
>> checkpoint), but the difference is negligible over a 2 billion cycle
>> execution time.
>>
>> Phil
>> On Mar 8, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Berkin Ozisikyilmaz wrote:
>>
>>> I am running ./simics -stall myscript.simics
>>>
>>> My script is this
>>>
>>> read-configuration magicstart-micro
>>> con0.input "./example_O3 -i ./color100 -p 1 &\n"
>>> con0.input "./example_O3 -i ./color100 -f -p 3 &\n"
>>> con0.input "./para_hop 61440 ./particles_0_64.flp 64 16 -1 2 &\n"
>>> con0.input "./scalparc para_F26_A32-D125K/F26-A32-D125K.tab 125000
>>> 32 2 10
>>> &\n"
>>> c 200000000
>>> cpu-switch-time 1
>>> instruction-fetch-mode instruction-fetch-trace
>>> istc-disable
>>> dstc-disable
>>> load-module ruby
>>> ruby0.setparam g_NUM_PROCESSORS 16
>>> ruby0.setparam g_MEMORY_SIZE_BYTES 536870912
>>> ruby0.setparam g_PROCS_PER_CHIP 16
>>> ruby0.setparam g_NUM_MEMORIES 1
>>> ruby0.setparam NUMBER_OF_VIRTUAL_NETWORKS 5
>>> ruby0.init
>>> load-module opal
>>> opal0.init
>>> opal0.sim-start "1-3-2-10-repeat2.opal"
>>> opal0.sim-step 100000000
>>> opal0.stats
>>> ruby0.dump-stats "1-3-2-10-repeat2.ruby"
>>> opal0.sim-stop
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:gems-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> ]
>>> On Behalf Of Dan Gibson
>>> Sent: 2009-03-08 15:38
>>> To: Gems Users
>>> Subject: Re: [Gems-users] Simics 2.2 vs Simics 3.0 statistics
>>> difference
>>>
>>> Berkin,
>>>
>>> How are you deciding how long to run your simulations? Are you using
>>> magic breakpoints before/after the benchmark? Or are you just running
>>> for a fixed number of instructions/steps/cycles?
>>>
>>> Can you please verify that you are setting both versions to emulate
>>> instruction fetch?
>>> (Simics command: instruction-fetch-mode instruction-fetch-trace)
>>>
>>> Can you also verify that both runs use cpu-switch-time 1?
>>> (Simics command: cpu-switch-time 1)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Berkin Ozisikyilmaz
>>> <boz283@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Since my current licenses are expiring soon. I have been trying to
>>>> run the
>>>> same scripts for the same experiments with the checkpoints created
>>>> in
>>> simics
>>>> 2.2 in simics 3.0. The total statistics seems to be significantly
>>> different.
>>>> I am just posting a part of the logs to show the difference. Has
>>>> anyone
>>>> observed this? Is there a solution? Should I contact Simics forum
>>>> and what
>>>> should I tell?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Berkin
>>>> PS: If you need more details I can attach the whole logs too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simics 3.0:
>>>> Ruby_current_time: 56966471
>>>> Ruby_start_time: 1
>>>> Ruby_cycles: 56966470
>>>>
>>>> mbytes_resident: 415.297
>>>> mbytes_total: 443.906
>>>> resident_ratio: 0.935568
>>>>
>>>> Total_misses: 638457
>>>> total_misses: 638457 [ 76793 26643 472 14111 92155 440 2386 6512
>>>> 9838
>>> 11455
>>>> 8045 793 279752 6949 91696 10417 ]
>>>> user_misses: 143334 [ 21434 11522 0 0 41821 0 1082 0 8810 10365
>>>> 2177 0 0 0
>>>> 44952 1171 ]
>>>> supervisor_misses: 495123 [ 55359 15121 472 14111 50334 440 1304
>>>> 6512 1028
>>>> 1090 5868 793 279752 6949 46744 9246 ]
>>>>
>>>> instruction_executed: 1942683921 [ 100000003 124129441 163319276
>>>> 165435219
>>>> 53861776 163460755 161657288 175769500 38246531 38301267 159181278
>>> 168205246
>>>> 45314492 170155942 53902511 161743396 ]
>>>> simics_cycles_executed: 32 [ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ]
>>>> cycles_per_instruction: 0.469177 [ 0.569665 0.458928 0.348804
>>>> 0.344343
>>>> 1.05764 0.348502 0.35239 0.324098 1.48945 1.48733 0.357872 0.338672
>>> 1.25714
>>>> 0.33479 1.05684 0.352203 ]
>>>> misses_per_thousand_instructions: 0.328647 [ 0.76793 0.214639
>>>> 0.00289004
>>>> 0.0852962 1.71095 0.00269178 0.0147596 0.0370485 0.257226 0.299076
>>> 0.0505399
>>>> 0.00471448 6.17357 0.040839 1.70115 0.0644045 ]
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Simics 2:
>>>> Ruby_current_time: 27449208
>>>> Ruby_start_time: 1
>>>> Ruby_cycles: 27449207
>>>>
>>>> mbytes_resident: 337.574
>>>> mbytes_total: 360.633
>>>> resident_ratio: 0.936082
>>>>
>>>> Total_misses: 296966
>>>> total_misses: 296966 [ 21740 589 369 7149 35485 266 349 8086 5925
>>>> 134268
>>>> 39354 635 6461 33942 545 1803 ]
>>>> user_misses: 64611 [ 5863 0 0 474 16339 0 0 0 5232 0 20015 0 1669
>>>> 15019 0
>>> 0
>>>> ]
>>>> supervisor_misses: 232355 [ 15877 589 369 6675 19146 266 349 8086
>>>> 693
>>> 134268
>>>> 19339 635 4792 18923 545 1803 ]
>>>>
>>>> instruction_executed: 935171606 [ 17858141 78628658 78723317
>>>> 78953073
>>>> 27873028 78695970 78809154 85782525 18431579 21706482 25875467
>>>> 79044210
>>>> 77362284 27932361 78666708 80828649 ]
>>>> simics_cycles_executed: 32 [ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ]
>>>> cycles_per_instruction: 0.469633 [ 1.53707 0.349099 0.34868 0.347665
>>>> 0.984795 0.348801 0.3483 0.319986 1.48925 1.26456 1.06082 0.347264
>>> 0.354814
>>>> 0.982703 0.34893 0.339597 ]
>>>> misses_per_thousand_instructions: 0.317552 [ 1.21737 0.00749091
>>>> 0.0046873
>>>> 0.0905475 1.27309 0.0033801 0.00442842 0.0942616 0.321459 6.18562
>>>> 1.5209
>>>> 0.00803348 0.0835161 1.21515 0.00692796 0.0223064 ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~gibson [esc]:wq!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>



-- 
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~gibson [esc]:wq!
_______________________________________________
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.