[SOLVED] algorithm Scheme MIPS computer architecture CS 3340 Computer Architecture Fall 2019 Mazidi

CS 3340 Computer Architecture Fall 2019 Mazidi
Homework:Cache Comparisons
Objective: Compare two sorting algorithms in terms of number of instructions and cache utilization.

Turn in, zipped together: Bubble sort program, Selection sort program, Document containing counts and commentary

Instructions:
Modify the Bubble sort demonstrated in class (https://github.com/kjmazidi/CS3340/blob/master/Code%20Samples/zybook_4/bubble_sort.asm) to sort 500 data items which are defined in the .data section. Remove any functionality in the program that is not sorting, such as printing the array before and after.
Use the same data as you use in the Bubble sort but copy your Selection sort from Homework 5 into a program and modify it to run the same data. The two sorts should be in two different programs and should do nothing but sort the 500 integers in memory.
Using the Instruction Counter tool, fill in the instruction comparison table below.
Using the Data cache Simulator tool, fill in the cache comparison table below.
Answer questions 1-5 below.

Reminder:

To get to the tools:
Assemble the program
Use the Tools menu to find the tool
Hit the Connect to MIPS button on the tool
Hit the green run arrow at the top of MIPS

Instruction Comparison Table:

Number Instr.
R-type
I-type
J-type
Avg I/item
Bubble Sort

Selection Sort

Cache Comparison Table:

Memory AccessCount
Cache Hit Count
Cache Miss Count
Cache Hit Rate
Bub Sort

Sel Sort

Questions:

How similar are the two algorithms in terms of average instructions executed per item sorted? Did this surprise you?
How similar is the distribution of R, I, and J instructions for the two algorithms? Comment on why this might be the case.
Compare the hit rates of the two algorithms using default settings. Given your understanding of the patterns in which these two algorithms access memory, how do you explain this difference?
Try modifying the placement or replacement schemes? Did you get a different result?
Try modifying block size or number of blocks. Do not change the total cache size. Did you get different results?