Hi Avadh Thanks for providing marssx86 simulator
I have some question about this topic. The source code I checked out is from the "feature" branch with commit id a3aa5ad2db (committed on Feb 28,2012) Is this version free from this sim_cycle variation problem ? Thanks and Regards. Yao-Qing On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:07 AM, avadh patel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ http://www.marss86.org Marss86-Devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/marss86-devel
