Actually it is a modified Version of some later 0.2 Version. I will update to 0.3 on monday to double check. Thanks for your hint.
Am 11.05.2012 um 18:07 schrieb avadh patel <[email protected]>: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Stefan Neumann > <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, the formatting got a little messed up. > > Host1: > > > > > Host2: > > > > user uops > kernel uops > sim_cycle > user uops > kernel uops > sim_cycle > 7210746924 > 1331578150 > 13797811843 > 7210744488 > 1331141836 > 13315031456 > 7210745232 > 1331564187 > 13767346806 > 7210744417 > 1331064636 > 13343311719 > 7210744826 > 1331475921 > 13803067702 > 7210745025 > 1331429686 > 13362192919 > 7210744068 > 1331046761 > 13778895729 > 7210745138 > 1331530721 > 13371649704 > 7210743664 > 1331602038 > 13741170045 > 7210746956 > 1332519415 > 13340211019 > 7210745221 > 1331551159 > 13765271526 > 7210744700 > 1332103942 > 13357991805 > 7210747188 > 1331712213 > 13739122442 > 7210744523 > 1331264662 > 13289832849 > 7210745019 > 1331550151 > 13758991929 > 7210744052 > 1331141885 > 13791512144 > > > This seems like an issue with VM's clock that was fixed in 0.3 release. > Which version are you using? Can you give the 'HEAD' commit id? > > - Avadh > > 2012/5/11 Stefan Neumann <[email protected]> > Hi, > > I am running some simulations of SPEC2006 benchmarks an noticed some > variations of the sim_cycle count when I run MARSS on different host machines. > > Just an example: ROI of GemsFDTD > > I ran the simulation a couple of times on each host. > > Host1: Xeon X5670 @ 2.93GHz, dual socket, HT enabled > Host2: Xeon X5675 @ 3.07GHz, dual socket, HT enabled > OS configuration is exactly the same on both machines. > > Now when I compare the numbers: > > Host1: > > > Host2: > > user uops kernel uops sim_cycles > user uops kernel uops sim_cycles > 7210746924 1331578150 13797811843 > 7210744488 1331141836 13315031456 > 7210745232 1331564187 13767346806 > 7210744417 1331064636 13343311719 > 7210744826 1331475921 13803067702 > 7210745025 1331429686 13362192919 > 7210744068 1331046761 13778895729 > 7210745138 1331530721 13371649704 > 7210743664 1331602038 13741170045 > 7210746956 1332519415 13340211019 > 7210745221 1331551159 13765271526 > 7210744700 1332103942 13357991805 > 7210747188 1331712213 13739122442 > 7210744523 1331264662 13289832849 > 7210745019 1331550151 13758991929 > 7210744052 1331141885 13791512144 > > The number of simulated instructions is pretty stable for all runs, but the > sim_cycles, hence the IPC number differ. > Any idea what the reason for this might be, as it seems that those > differences more or less correlate with the clock rate of the host. > > Regards, > Stefan > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.marss86.org > Marss86-Devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/marss86-devel > >
_______________________________________________ http://www.marss86.org Marss86-Devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/marss86-devel
