Hi, I did a rerun of the benchmark with the latest MARSSx86 version (code-cleanup branch) and the results are the same as for my previous run. Still there are significant variations when running the benchmark on machines with a different host frequency.
Any guesses how to resolve this? Regards, Stefan 2012/5/12 YaoQing,Wang <[email protected]> > 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
