search for: _hard_

2014-05-13 15:47-0400, Waiman Long: > On 05/12/2014 11:22 AM, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > >I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: > >1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. > >2) Pending VCPU gets descheduled. > > - we have PLE and lock holder isn't running [1] > > - the hypervisor randomly preempts us > >3) Lock holder

2014-05-13 15:47-0400, Waiman Long: > On 05/12/2014 11:22 AM, Radim Kr?m?? wrote: > >I think there is an unwanted scenario on virtual machines: > >1) VCPU sets the pending bit and start spinning. > >2) Pending VCPU gets descheduled. > > - we have PLE and lock holder isn't running [1] > > - the hypervisor randomly preempts us > >3) Lock holder

...of specs equally well in Ruby 1.8.6, 1.8.7 and 1.9.1. Mail reads every email in the TMail test suite without crashing, and is designed to never crash on parsing input (I know, can''t really say that, but it is very resilient to crap). The point is that TMail is _not_ 1.9 compatible and is _hard_ to get compatible. Mail is compatible, however needs some more work to make it a TMail replacement. I announced it on Ruby-Talk on the 25th of you are interested, "[ANN] mail 1.0.0" You can get mail from gemcutter, or from http://github.com/mikel/mail But this email is to solicit help...

...ther rants in this thread, when done wrong more than 2) cacheline to touch. That said, all our benchmarking is pretty much for the cache-hot case, so I'm not entirely convinced yet that the one pending bit makes up for it, it does in the cache-hot case. But... writing cache-cold benchmarks is _hard_ :/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20140514/d1bc1ad6/attachment.sig>

...robably use the faster pre-lock quite a lot. Cover letter states that queue depth 1-3 is a bit slower than ticket spinlock, so we might not be losing if we implemented a faster in-word-lock of this capacity. (Not that I'm a fan of the hybrid lock.) > But... writing cache-cold benchmarks is _hard_ :/ Wouldn't clflush of the second cacheline before trying for the lock give us a rough estimate?

...robably use the faster pre-lock quite a lot. Cover letter states that queue depth 1-3 is a bit slower than ticket spinlock, so we might not be losing if we implemented a faster in-word-lock of this capacity. (Not that I'm a fan of the hybrid lock.) > But... writing cache-cold benchmarks is _hard_ :/ Wouldn't clflush of the second cacheline before trying for the lock give us a rough estimate?

Hi Dirk, It was unclear to me to which extent it is a kernel/security patch vs (r)Java issue. In any case, this is really problematic for me as it prevents me de facto from running some key R packages for my daily work. I'll post again if I see some solution (other than downgrading the kernel) somewhere. Meanwhile, any suggestions for a fix is welcome. Cheers Lorenzo On Mon, Jun 26, 2017

Hi, I have few questions on the specification. * Just to understand : - What is the interest of super blocks ? Is it to save place when recording coded block flags (7.3) ? - What is the advantage of using the coded order ? it is more often easier with raster order (especially to find neighbor in 7.8.1 for exemple). Is it to simplify the correspondence between block, macro block

...a = new stack<int>; produces no observable semantics. If there were no such constraint, then that same line could produce: new allocated 24 bytes at 0xfe4238 on the standard output device (cout/stdout). The only thing that ensures that line doesn't produce that output is the _hard_ requirement on the users program. Now, we knew that some users would want to put a print in new/delete implementations and do exactly as above. We didn't have a good way to describe that we wanted to happen and we didn't spend the effort to describe it well, so, we choose the ch...

a specification will _eventually_ be used, by someone, to tell the user they are doing things "wrong", won't it? and doesn't that turn markdown's genesis upside-down? heck, next thing you know we'll be telling them to r.t.f.m. i would prefer that implementers get more sophisticated about teasing out the user's intent in "ambiguous" cases. of course,

...accomodated in 2-6 bytes total. And as 1-6 streamed bytes, the common endianness is network order (big endian), no multi-byte endianness/order issues. Ironically, being an American company, this is where Red Hat has done a phenominal job of any "western" distro company, IMHO, of pushing _hard_ for UTF-8. Red Hat made this major shift with CL3.0 (Red Hat Linux 8.0), which then went into EL3, which was based on CL3.1 (Red Hat Linux 9). Typical bitching and moaning was present, condemnations of both Perl maintainers of 5.8 and Red Hat Linux 8.0, etc... More on the GUI front, I think Jav...

(Hi Mike!) On May 1, 2008, at 6:11 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Apr 30, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Personally to me, I have a bigger axe to grind with C++ operator new. >> AFAIK, the standard doesn't give leeway to do a number of interesting >> optimizations for new/delete because the user is explicitly allowed >> to >> override them and the std