Hi Pavan, There are two issues here. One, as Mitch pointed out, is that Orion is not entirely accurate. I would suggest computing activity counts from garnet and feeding them to DSENT.
However, I have a feeling you will see a similar phenomenon (dynamic power >> leakage power) even with DSENT. How many cycles did your simulation run for? For full system runs in gem5, the network activity is typically very low (since network gets flits only on cache misses). As a result your dynamic power is very low. Network activity can be increased by reducing cache sizes. cheers, Tushar On Sep 12, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Pavan Poluri wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks a lot for your detailed reply. > > Thanks, > Pavan > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Mitch Hayenga > <mitch.hayenga+g...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the > last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because its > internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly). > > More Information: > 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool called > DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper they > highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it capable of > being off by ~10x in power. > > 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation into > why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. > (http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) > > Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 has > received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't trust it. > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Mitch Hayenga <mitch.haye...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Hi, > > I wouldn't trust the power model. Garnet is based on Orion, which in the > last year a few papers have shown to be quite inaccurate (mostly because its > internal model doesn't scale some technology parameters properly). > > More Information: > 1. Peh's group recently announced a more accurate power modeling tool called > DSENT (https://sites.google.com/site/mitdsent/). In their paper they > highlight many issues with Orion and (at the 45nm node) find it capable of > being off by ~10x in power. > > 2. I published a WDDD paper on Orion showing my own brief investigation into > why its power/area numbers seemed disconnected with reality. > (http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~hayenga/papers/wddd2012_hayenga.pdf) > > Hope this helps. Maybe the version of Orion integrated with Ruby/gem5 has > received some updates, but unless you've heard otherwise, I wouldn't trust it. > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Pavan Poluri <poluripa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I have executed the Blackscholes application of the PARSEC benchmark suite > with 16 threads on the input file set (in_4.txt) with a full system > simulation with 16 cores, 16 L2 caches and 16 directories on a mesh topology > with 4 rows. I have used the MOESI_CMP_directory protocol. The technology > used is 90nm with a clock frequency of 1GHz and operating voltage VDD of > 1.2V. I was going through the power statistics in the ruby.stats file. The > following are the power numbers from the simulation. > > Router Dynamic Power = 0.00710691 W => 0.4441 mW per router > Router Static Power = 0.452366 W => 28.272 mW per router > Router Clock Power = 0.541901 W > > I am confused with these power numbers. The dynamic power is very very less > compared to the static power. I do not understand why the dynamic power is so > low even when the simulation resulted in the injection of 75,899,868 flits > and the successful reception of 75,899,865 flits. Am I doing something wrong > with the simulation? Do I need to set some parameters for the power > calculations? > > Thanks for your time. > > Thanks, > Pavan > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > gem5-users@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > > > -- > Mitch Hayenga > mitch.haye...@gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > gem5-users@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-users mailing list > gem5-users@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
_______________________________________________ gem5-users mailing list gem5-users@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gem5-users
