Re: [Gems-users] save-caches/load-caches bug

[Javi Merino <merinocj@xxxxxxxxx>]

Byn Choi wrote:
> If you do CacheMemory::print() before save-caches and also do another  
> print() after load-caches, you will see that they are substantially  
> different. Specifically, with single-chip multicore chips, you'll see  
> that only core 0 has any lines allocated while all other cores (core  
> 1, 2, and 3 in a quad-core setup) are completely empty.
> 
> You can also see this by ungzipping the cache checkpoints. With single- 
> chip multicore system, all the entries will say that they belong to  
> core 0. What this means is that, when you do load-caches, all the  
> transactions will only be fed into core 0.

When I use the setup explained (do the save-caches with
MOESI_SMP_directory, do the load-caches with whatever CMP protocol) that
doesn't happen.

And yes, unzipping the cache checkpoints shows accesses for all the
processors. 

> 
> Byn
> 
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 3:48 AM, Javi Merino wrote:
> 
> > Byn Choi wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I think I may have found a bug in the save-caches/load-caches  
> >> mechanism.
> >>
> >> Here, I'm assuming a single-chip multicore environment.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> CacheMemory::recordCacheContents() has the line
> >> tr.addRecord(m_chip_ptr->getID(), m_cache[i][j].m_Address, Address
> >> (0), ... );
> >> m_chip_ptr->getID() is the same for all the cores in the chip, i.e.
> >> with single-chip multicore, this value is always 0.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Am I missing something here? Is there an option that should be set to
> >> correct this behavior?
> >
> > Hi Bin, at my university, we do the warmup part of the checkpoint with
> > the MOESI_SMP_directory protocol and g_PROCS_PER_CHIP set to 1.
> > Afterwards, we load the caches of single-chip multicores without
> > problems: the data goes to the caches of the different cores.
> >
> > I think this is the correct way of doing it. Even if they are  
> > different
> > coherence protocols, the data in the cache should be mostly the  
> > same, if
> > your cache configurations are similar in size. After all, it is the  
> > most
> > recently used data.
> >
> > That's my experience, but I'd like to know how do others in the list  
> > do
> > the save-caches part of the workload creation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Javi
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente