LPDDR5 bandwidth not matching expectations

CMU-SAFARI / ramulator2

Ramulator 2.0 is a modern, modular, extensible, and fast cycle-accurate DRAM simulator. It provides support for agile implementation and evaluation of new memory system designs (e.g., new DRAM standards, emerging RowHammer mitigation techniques). Described in our paper https://people.inf.ethz.ch/omutlu/pub/Ramulator2_arxiv23.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11030

MIT License

235 stars 58 forks source link

LPDDR5 bandwidth not matching expectations #14

Open ankenman opened 1 year ago

ankenman commented 1 year ago

I am having two issues when using LPDDR5 with an external simulator:

Sequential and Random streams give the same bandwidth (expect random to be ~2/3; DDR4 works correctly)
Bandwidth is much greater than what I expect. How big are the data chunks for each callback from ramulator2_frontend->receive_external_requests()?

RichardLuo79 commented 1 year ago

Hi,

Thanks for spotting this issue!

May I know what configurations you are using for the LPDDR5 experiments?
receive_external_requests() has no fixed transaction size on its own. The memory system (i.e., controller and DRAM) decides the number of bytes transferred per transaction (e.g., m_channel_width * burst_size).

ankenman commented 1 year ago

My YAML file is similar to the example provided:

  Frontend:
    impl: GEM5

    Translation:
      impl: RandomTranslation
      max_addr: 2147483648

  MemorySystem:
    impl: GenericDRAM
    clock_ratio: 4

    DRAM:
      impl: LPDDR5
      org:
        preset: LPDDR5_2Gb_x16
        channel: 1
        rank: 1
      timing:
        preset: LPDDR5_6400

    Controller:
      impl: Generic
      Scheduler:
        impl: FRFCFS
      RefreshManager:
        impl: AllBank
      plugins:

    AddrMapper:
      impl: RoBaRaCoCh

How would I go about setting m_channel_width and burst_size?

RichardLuo79 commented 8 months ago

Hi,

We recently pushed some bug fixes involving state updates and timing parameters in LPDDR5 (#27 and #32). Could you please let us know if these fixes solve your issue? Thanks!