Trace-driven and program-driven simulation: a comparison

Proceedings of International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems Pub Date : 1994-01-31 DOI:10.1109/MASCOT.1994.284392

B. Malloy

{"title":"Trace-driven and program-driven simulation: a comparison","authors":"B. Malloy","doi":"10.1109/MASCOT.1994.284392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We compare the program-driven and trace-driven approach to simulating the parallel execution of a program on a multiprocessor. To obtain the traces, we used a program-driven simulator that actually executes the instructions in an input program. Our simulator is coded in the process-oriented simulation language SimCal and is guided by a parameterized computational model that describes the target multiprocessor. We have used the program-driven multiprocessor simulator to execute parallel threads produced by our parallelizing compiler and we have validated the simulator by comparing the simulation results to results obtained through execution of the threads on an actual multiprocesser, the AT&T 3B2. To compare the trace-driven and program-driven approaches, we used the program-driven simulator to obtain traces of the execution of the threads. We conclude that the trace-driven approach is faster than the program-driven approach since it doesn't actually execute the threads. However, the trace-driven approach must store the traces and therefore requires more space than the program-driven approach.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":288344,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/MASCOT.1994.284392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

We compare the program-driven and trace-driven approach to simulating the parallel execution of a program on a multiprocessor. To obtain the traces, we used a program-driven simulator that actually executes the instructions in an input program. Our simulator is coded in the process-oriented simulation language SimCal and is guided by a parameterized computational model that describes the target multiprocessor. We have used the program-driven multiprocessor simulator to execute parallel threads produced by our parallelizing compiler and we have validated the simulator by comparing the simulation results to results obtained through execution of the threads on an actual multiprocesser, the AT&T 3B2. To compare the trace-driven and program-driven approaches, we used the program-driven simulator to obtain traces of the execution of the threads. We conclude that the trace-driven approach is faster than the program-driven approach since it doesn't actually execute the threads. However, the trace-driven approach must store the traces and therefore requires more space than the program-driven approach.<>

查看原文本刊更多论文

跟踪驱动和程序驱动仿真:比较

我们比较了程序驱动和跟踪驱动的方法来模拟一个程序在多处理器上的并行执行。为了获得跟踪，我们使用了一个程序驱动的模拟器，它实际执行输入程序中的指令。我们的模拟器采用面向过程的仿真语言SimCal进行编码，并以描述目标多处理器的参数化计算模型为指导。我们使用程序驱动的多处理器模拟器来执行并行化编译器产生的并行线程，并通过将仿真结果与在实际的多处理器AT&T 3B2上执行线程获得的结果进行比较来验证模拟器。为了比较跟踪驱动和程序驱动的方法，我们使用程序驱动的模拟器来获取线程执行的跟踪。我们得出结论，跟踪驱动的方法比程序驱动的方法更快，因为它实际上并不执行线程。然而，跟踪驱动的方法必须存储跟踪，因此比程序驱动的方法需要更多的空间。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Proceedings of International Workshop on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems

自引率

0.00%

发文量