Re: [Gems-users] instruction count in different GEMS protocols?

[Konstantinos Aisopos <kaisopos@xxxxxxxxx>]

thnaks for your help Dan!

On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Dan Gibson <degibson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As I said before, this is expected. Instruction counts are not often useful
> measures for multiprocessor and/or full-system simulations.
>
> Regards,
> Dan
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Konstantinos Aisopos <kaisopos@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the quick respose Dan! All my simulations have the same
>> random seed (g_RANDOM_SEED: 1). I know that I should have
>> randomization enabled and run many simulations to get accurate
>> results, but currently I am avoiding it for simlicity.
>> The thing that troubles me most is that *ALL* splash specs in
>> MOESI_SMP have 500%-800% the number of instructions in MESI_SCMP. If I
>> would see such big differences in the instruction count but random, I
>> wouldn't bring up this question. Any additional thought you may have
>> please let me know. If it still seems normal to you also let me know
>> :)
>>
>> thanks for your time!
>> -Kostas
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Dan Gibson <degibson@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > You should expect instruction count to vary widely even with the same
>> > protocol for different RANDOM_SEED, because of spinloops.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Konstantinos Aisopos
>> > <kaisopos@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> hi all,
>> >>
>> >> I am running splash specs in MESI_SCMP and MOESI_SMP and observing the
>> >> following: Ruby_cycles are in the same order of magnitute (+- 20%).
>> >> However, instructions in MOESI_SMP = (~800%) instructions in
>> >> MESI_SCMP.  How can the same specs with the same inputs generate 8x
>> >> more instructions in a different protocol? (roughly the same
>> >> proportion for all splash specs). Is the variable
>> >> *instruction_executed* trustworthy? Should I use another variable to
>> >> measure instruction count?
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >> Kostas
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>