Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Compatibility'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Accellera Systems Initiative
    • Information
    • Announcements
    • In the News
  • SystemC
    • SystemC Language
    • SystemC AMS (Analog/Mixed-Signal)
    • SystemC TLM (Transaction-level Modeling)
    • SystemC Verification (UVM-SystemC, SCV)
    • SystemC CCI (Configuration, Control & Inspection)
    • SystemC Datatypes
  • UVM (Universal Verification Methodology)
    • UVM 2017 - Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • UVM Simulator Specific Issues
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM (Pre-IEEE) Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM 1.2 Public Review
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus Pre-Release Discussion
    • Portable Stimulus 1.0
  • IP Security
    • IP Security Assurance Whitepaper Discussion
  • IP-XACT
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • OCP (Open Core Protocol)
  • UCIS (Unified Coverage Interoperability Standard)
  • Commercial Announcements
    • Announcements

Categories

  • SystemC
  • UVM
  • UCIS
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


Company

Found 1 result

  1. Hello all, I'm simulating MOESI protocol for L1 caches in SystemC. I'm getting different results for the same source code when running in SystemC 2.3.0 and SystemC 2.3.1 versions in different machines. Could anyone kindly pass some light on this topic? Machine1: Linux 3.13, Ubuntu 14.04, SystemC 2.3.1, Intel Pentium Dual Core processor. Output - Machine 1: CPU Reads RHit RMiss Writes WHit WMiss Hitrate 0 6 0 6 4 0 4 0.000000 1 34 0 34 22 0 22 0.000000 2 35 0 35 43 0 43 0.000000 3 39 2 37 46 2 44 4.705882 4 36 0 36 55 0 55 0.000000 5 52 0 52 47 0 47 0.000000 6 48 3 45 51 2 49 5.050505 7 42 1 41 55 5 50 6.185567 Total: 292 6 286 323 9 314 15 Avg: 36 0 35 40 1 39 1 2. Main memory access rates Bus had 286 reads and 1 upgrades and 314 readX. A total of 601 accesses. 3. Average time for bus acquisition There were 50 waits for the bus. Average waiting time per access: 0.083195 cycles. 4. There were 1 Cache to Cache transfers 5. Total execution time is 10204 ns, Avg per-mem-access time is 16.978369 ns 6. Probe Read: 5, Probe ReadX: 7 Machine 2: Linux 3.13, Ubuntu 14.04, SystemC 2.3.0, Intel i7 Quad Core processor. Output - Machine 2: CPU Reads RHit RMiss Writes WHit WMiss Hitrate 0 6 0 6 4 0 4 0.000000 1 34 0 34 22 0 22 0.000000 2 35 0 35 43 0 43 0.000000 3 39 2 37 46 2 44 4.705882 4 36 0 36 55 0 55 0.000000 5 52 0 52 47 0 47 0.000000 6 48 3 45 51 2 49 5.050505 7 42 1 41 55 5 50 6.185567 2. Main memory access rates Bus had 286 reads and 0 upgrades and 314 readX. A total of 600 accesses. 3. Average time for bus acquisition There were 51 waits for the bus. Average waiting time per access: 0.085000 cycles. 4. There were 0 Cache to Cache transfers 5. Total execu tion time is 10204 ns, Avg per-mem-access time is 17.006667 ns 6. Probe Read: 1 , Probe ReadX: 0 Does the version 2.3.0 and 2.3.1 are the reason for the inconsistent result? Source code and steps to run the simulation can be found here. Thanks, Tamilselvan Shanmugam.
×
×
  • Create New...