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

[Philip Garcia <pcgarcia@xxxxxxxx>]

It sounds like you didn't set the memory to be the same size in simics  
2.2 vs simics 3.0, but I could be wrong.  I think this error occurs  
when you have a physical memory address greater (or less than or  
whatever, I can't remember the ultrasparc memory model) than what  
rubys is expecting.  I imagine someone from the GEMS groups would know  
more about it, but I know I've seen that error in the past.
Phil
On Mar 10, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Berkin Ozisikyilmaz wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.