I vote (if I still get a vote :) for separate repo and support using EXTRAS.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Steve Reinhardt <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the contribution... this is helpful perspective, not butting in > at all. > > I agree that it would be best not to give the impression that McPAT is the > "official" power model for gem5. There's no intention to make it so, and I > believe that some of us have other internal power models that we use with > gem5, but which can't be shared publicly. > > This sounds like a reasonable argument for creating a separate repo rather > than putting McPAT in ext. What do others think? > > It still seems clear that we should move ahead with hosting our own McPAT > branch though (whether separate or in ext). I haven't heard anyone suggest > otherwise. Let's not lose the momentum on this... > > Steve > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Erik Tomusk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Having spent far too much time with McPAT's source code, I thought I'd >> butt in here. The lack of a repo is a problem for myself and others using >> McPAT, but for every reason to include the McPAT source with gem5, I can >> think of a good reason not to. >> >> The biggest problem with including McPAT, IMO, is that it implies that >> McPAT is fit for the purpose of modeling power for gem5. I'm not sure this >> is the case, at least for the official McPAT release. Beyond quality of >> code issues with McPAT (and there are many), McPAT's microarchitectural >> model is only somewhat similar to gem5's. More often than not, there is no >> simple one-to-one correspondence between McPAT's and gem5's parameters. >> >> I'd argue that it's worth hosting a McPAT repo separately from gem5 to see >> if a community of users and developers emerges. If McPAT's quality reaches >> gem5's, then distributing McPAT as standard is a good option. At the >> moment, though, the amount of magic required to get McPAT to work with gem5 >> is such that I don't think bundling McPAT is a good idea. >> >> It's maybe also worth considering if it's good for the broader community >> that a simulator and power model are developed so closely in tandem. >> Ideally we'd like our simulators and power models at least somewhat >> modular, so we don't end up with a repeat of Wattch only being usable with >> SimpleScalar. >> >> -Erik >> >> >> >> On 21/09/13 22:46, Steve Reinhardt wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Nathan Binkert <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sept. 20, 2013, 7:46 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I do not really see the point here. Could you be more clear around >>>>>> >>>>> what this "integration" would involve? In any case, I would vote not to >>>> include the McPat source in gem5, and if it really needs to live in the >>>> source tree, get the users that want to have it to clone/checkout in >>>> ext/mcpat. >>>> >>>> I agree. Shouldn't McPAT be maintained in its own repository? Shouldn't >>>> it just use EXTRAS? >>>> >>>> The point is that everyone has patches/fixes etc. for McPAT, and since >>> HP >>> doesn't seem to be actively accepting patches and updating their version, >>> if we host our own version then at least we can share patches amongst >>> ourselves and not duplicate effort. I'm not sure how much of this >>> involves >>> gem5-specific changes vs. just general power model fixes, but there are at >>> least plenty of the latter. >>> >>> Ron, Brad, Ali, and I were at the DOE ModSim workshop last week discussing >>> this problem, and hosting our own version of McPAT seemed to be the best >>> solution (in the near term, anyway). >>> >>> Another option is just to host a separate McPAT repo on repo.gem5.org. >>> That's OK with me too. When I suggested doing this instead of putting >>> it >>> in ext, Ali said "why not put it in ext?", and I don't have any great >>> answer for that. In general, we've maintained separate repos on >>> gem5.orgprimarily because of license issues (e.g., EIO and the >>> >>> softfloat >>> discussion), and that doesn't apply here. So I see the argument for >>> putting it in ext, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. >>> >>> Steve >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> gem5-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> gem5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/**listinfo/gem5-dev<http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev> >> > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
