You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
1- I am trying to understand the stats of ramulator2, to estimate the total BW of the running trace in SimpleO3 mode.
Could you please give some hints on that?
("total_num_read_requests + total_num_write_requests")*(tx_bytes)/(??)
2- I expected to see the same value for "total_num_read_requests + total_num_write_requests" and "llc_write_misses +llc_read_misses" but it seems they are not the same, so I wonder why not?
Are the llc_req and mem_req in the same size (tx_bytes)?
3- these two stats "memory_access_cycles_recorded_core_0" and "cycles_recorded_core_0" are unclear.
4- "memory_access_cycles_recorded_core_0" is not only related to the memory_access delay, as in some cases with the same number of memory requests (total_num_read_requests + total_num_write_requests), but with a different number of "num_expected_insts", the "memory_access_cycles_recorded_core_0" will not remain the same!
Thanks,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
1- I am trying to understand the stats of ramulator2, to estimate the total BW of the running trace in SimpleO3 mode.
Could you please give some hints on that?
("total_num_read_requests + total_num_write_requests")*(tx_bytes)/(??)
2- I expected to see the same value for "total_num_read_requests + total_num_write_requests" and "llc_write_misses +llc_read_misses" but it seems they are not the same, so I wonder why not?
Are the llc_req and mem_req in the same size (tx_bytes)?
3- these two stats "memory_access_cycles_recorded_core_0" and "cycles_recorded_core_0" are unclear.
4- "memory_access_cycles_recorded_core_0" is not only related to the memory_access delay, as in some cases with the same number of memory requests (total_num_read_requests + total_num_write_requests), but with a different number of "num_expected_insts", the "memory_access_cycles_recorded_core_0" will not remain the same!
Thanks,
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: