1/1

|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 11, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
Hi all!
The first series of Nog patches are now in cvs and tested. Since there will be more drastical changes comming I tagged this version of or1ksim with stable_0_1_0, and also created branch stable_0_1_x that will be used to track any bugfixes. The HEAD trunk will be used for development and may not be stable all the time. The most visible change is 15%-20% faster simulation times: or1ksim: 11. 02. 2005 Exception 0x00000900 (Data TLB Miss) at 0xc004c978, EA: 0xc1d88110, ppc: 0xc004c978, npc: 0xc004c97c, cycles 2650520152, #109247582 exit(-1042613780) @reset : cycles 0, insn #0 @exit : cycles 2650534782, insn #109248113 diff : cycles 2650534782, insn #109248113 real 4m56.850s user 4m13.323s sys 0m5.595s or1ksim: 24. 12. 2004 Exception 0x900 (Data TLB Miss) at 0xc004c978, EA: 0xc1d88110, ppc: 0xc004c978, npc: 0xc004c97c, cycles 2650520152, #109247582 exit(-1042613780) @reset : cycles 0, insn #0 @exit : cycles 2650534782, insn #109248113 diff : cycles 2650534782, insn #109248113 real 5m51.364s user 5m7.375s sys 0m5.301s Nog i looked at your patches and you may commit all of the peripheral cleanups. Regarding FAST_SIM i'd really be interested in some numbers. Does it really speed up execution by some meaningful margin (As far as i know faster simulation time is the only it exists) ? If it's negligable i'm all for throwing that one out. best regards, p. |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 11, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
The first series of Nog patches are now in cvs and tested. Since there
will be more drastical changes comming I tagged this version of or1ksim with stable_0_1_0, and also created branch stable_0_1_x that will be used to track any bugfixes. The HEAD trunk will be used for development and may not be stable all the time. Umm, what happened to updateing the configure script and Makefile.ins? (CVS doesn't exactly build out-of-the-box like this...)
Nog i looked at your patches and you may commit all of the
peripheral cleanups. I'm on it.
Regarding FAST_SIM i'd really be interested in some numbers. Does it
really speed up execution by some meaningful margin (As far as i know faster simulation time is the only it exists) ? If it's negligable i'm all for throwing that one out. If I can get a working simulator with --enable-fsim, I'll do some benchmarks. If we actually want to keep FAST_SIM, then we'll need to rethink the peripheral cleanups. FAST_SIM is based on the assumption that all the configuration is static and the compiler will remove always true or always false conditions. With the peripheral cleanups however, everything became dynamic... nog. |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 11, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
* György 'nog' Jeney (nog@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
> The first series of Nog patches are now in cvs and tested. Since there
> will be more drastical changes comming I tagged this version of or1ksim with > stable_0_1_0, and also created branch stable_0_1_x that will be used > to track any bugfixes. The HEAD trunk will be used for development and may > not be stable all the time. Umm, what happened to updateing the configure script and Makefile.ins? (CVS doesn't exactly build out-of-the-box like this...) i'm still waiting on opencores admin. i'll let him update the configure script, Makefile.ins,... and commit it to both branches. regards, p. |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 14, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
> Regarding FAST_SIM i'd really be interested in some numbers. Does it
> really speed up execution by some meaningful margin (As far as i know > faster simulation time is the only it exists) ? If it's > negligable i'm all for throwing that one out. If I can get a working simulator with --enable-fsim, I'll do some benchmarks. If we actually want to keep FAST_SIM, then we'll need to rethink the peripheral cleanups. FAST_SIM is based on the assumption that all the configuration is static and the compiler will remove always true or always false conditions. With the peripheral cleanups however, everything became dynamic... |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 16, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
* György 'nog' Jeney (nog@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
> Regarding FAST_SIM i'd really be interested in some numbers. Does it
> really speed up execution by some meaningful margin (As far as i know > faster simulation time is the only it exists) ? If it's > negligable i'm all for throwing that one out. > > If I can get a working simulator with --enable-fsim, I'll do some benchmarks. > If we actually want to keep FAST_SIM, then we'll need to rethink the peripheral > cleanups. FAST_SIM is based on the assumption that all the configuration is > static and the compiler will remove always true or always false conditions. > With the peripheral cleanups however, everything became dynamic... I've done some benchmarks. The results are surpising to such an extent that I'm sure I'm doing something wrong. I am useing stock cvs. I have attached a copy of fast_config.c which has been generated from the attached sim.cfg (sim --output-cfg). I have also attached my `hack' to linux to prevent it from recalibrating its delay loop (just to make it boot faster). +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | Run | Real with --enable-fsim | Real without --enable-fsim | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | 1 | 3m35.566s | 2m55.641s | | 2 | 3m24.519s | 3m8.849s | | 3 | 2m45.621s | 3m32.061s | | 4 | 3m34.219s | 3m33.546s | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ I have pasted the output of the time commands below. So you're saying that --enable-fsim is actually --enable-slowsim ;)... (for all but one misterious case)... Just to make sure, are you running this on otherwise idle machine ? Do you have any daemon that renices processes hard on cpu or similar ? Please give me a few days to confirm this (or anybody else if you want to help) and if it turns out our results are consistent it's bye-bye "FAST_SIM"... Agreed ? best regards, p. |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 16, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
Just to make sure, are you running this on otherwise idle machine ?
Yep, the machine was otherwise idle.
Do you have any daemon that renices processes hard on cpu or similar ?
Nope, nothing of this sort. Just to be absolutely sure that nothing is running, I rebooted into runlevel 1 and ran the bechmarks again. The times are more eaven, but --enable-fsim still shows a minor slowdown. I still don't understand why that is... +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | Run | Real with --enable-fsim | Real without --enable-fsim | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | 1 | 2m42.967s | 2m42.081s | | 2 | 2m42.965s | 2m42.026s | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ Again, the raw data appears below: Without --enable-fsim: real 2m42.081s user 2m33.980s sys 0m7.980s real 2m42.026s user 2m34.860s sys 0m7.170s With --enable-fsim: real 2m42.967s user 2m35.380s sys 0m7.580s real 2m42.965s user 2m35.540s sys 0m7.420s nog. |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 16, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
+-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Run | Real with --enable-fsim | Real without --enable-fsim | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | 1 | 2m42.967s | 2m42.081s | | 2 | 2m42.965s | 2m42.026s | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ Now I just kick my feet up and admit that I have no clue as to what's going. While browsing the cvs commit logs I came across this one (sim-config.h, revision 1.49): "fsim runs 4 times faster than sim" by markom. If you (Marko) are kind enough could you maybe give a quick comment to this log entry? What is the underlying reason that FAST_SIM gives such a performance boost? I don't understand why I'm not seeing this performance boost. From what I could tell, the simlulator configuration didn't change all that much since revision 1.49 and now. nog. |
|||
|
or1ksim stable_0_1_0
by Unknown on Feb 17, 2005 |
Not available! | ||
|
* György 'nog' Jeney (nog@sdf.lonestar.org) wrote:
> Just to make sure, are you running this on otherwise idle machine ?
Yep, the machine was otherwise idle.
> Do you have any daemon that renices processes hard on cpu or similar ?
Nope, nothing of this sort. Just to be absolutely sure that nothing is running, I rebooted into runlevel 1 and ran the bechmarks again. The times are more eaven, but --enable-fsim still shows a minor slowdown. I still don't understand why that is... +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | Run | Real with --enable-fsim | Real without --enable-fsim | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ | 1 | 2m42.967s | 2m42.081s | | 2 | 2m42.965s | 2m42.026s | +-----+-------------------------+----------------------------+ Again, the raw data appears below: Without --enable-fsim: real 2m42.081s user 2m33.980s sys 0m7.980s real 2m42.026s user 2m34.860s sys 0m7.170s With --enable-fsim: real 2m42.967s user 2m35.380s sys 0m7.580s real 2m42.965s user 2m35.540s sys 0m7.420s My testruns also showed similar results (few secundes faster execution at ~3 min total running time without --enable-fsim). So go ahead throw it out, i guess nobody uses it anyway. (if you do now is the time to shout and convince us why we should keep it). best regards, p. PS. Here is one example run... with --enable-fsim 0xc004c978, npc: 0xc004c97c, cycles 2639603090, #108829136 exit(-1042605588) @reset : cycles 0, insn #0 @exit : cycles 2639617720, insn #108829667 diff : cycles 2639617720, insn #108829667 real 3m49.526s user 2m51.581s sys 0m5.193s without --enable-fsim 0xc004c978, npc: 0xc004c97c, cycles 2639603090, #108829136 exit(-1042605588) @reset : cycles 0, insn #0 @exit : cycles 2639617720, insn #108829667 diff : cycles 2639617720, insn #108829667 real 3m47.118s user 2m51.156s sys 0m5.121s |
|||
1/1

