search for: amortizing

Folks, I call the function calcAmorts like so: calcAmorts(prevAm, amort, myDates) Note that I use the package lubridate. The last line where do.call is called to first divide all the rows by the first row and then rbind gives the following error: Error in do.call("rbind", apply(amortsByYears, 1, "/", amortsByYears[, : second argument must be a list By contrast if

"to memory" means: mounting a ~2 GByte filesystem [ tmpfs?, or ramfs? ], and put the "/tmp" on it. [ e.g.: 4 GByte ram in the pc ]. what to write in the "/etc/fstab"? I would like to collect the [ answers too:P ]: Advantages: - Memory is way faster then HDD/SSD, so it could speed things up - "SSD amortization" is less Disadvantages: - Security?

Hi, this is my first post here, my name is Lucas and I''m just starting with rails. For one of the first models I made (an accounts plan), I had some example data in a CSV file, so I created this migration, the idea is to detect the parent/child relationships according to the account number, the code works right (if I insert some puts here and there, I can see it), but when the migration

There is a work taking place by multiple people in this area and more is expected to happen and I’d like to make sure we’re working toward a common end goal. I tried to collect the use-cases for run-time memory checks and the specific memchecks required for each: 1. Loop Vectorizer: each memory access is checked against all other memory accesses in the loop (except read vs read) 2. Loop

Hello again. :) There has been renewed interest in having instructions track their own order in basic blocks to help make dominance queries fast. I have a very simple naive implementation of this here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D51664 Essentially, every instruction will carry an integer order number, and inserting new instructions invalidates the ordering. I know there are better algorithms for

Hi, To speed up reading of large (few million lines) CSV files I am writing custom read functions (in C). By timing various approaches I figured out that one of the bottlenecks in reading character fields is the mkChar() function which on each call incurs a lot of garbage-collection-related overhead. I wonder if there is a "vectorized" version of mkChar, say mkChar2(char **, int

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:10:12PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> >> >> Amortize the cost of virtual interrupts by doing both rx and tx work >> on reception of a receive interrupt if tx napi is enabled. With >>

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:10:12PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> >> >> Amortize the cost of virtual interrupts by doing both rx and tx work >> on reception of a receive interrupt if tx napi is enabled. With >>

On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:22:00AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > @@ -1668,6 +1668,9 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_build_skb(struct tun_struct *tun, > > > if (copied != len) > > > return ERR_PTR(-EFAULT); > > > + get_page(alloc_frag->page); > > > + alloc_frag->offset += buflen; > > > + > > This adds an atomic op on XDP_DROP

In an R program I am working on, I progressively build up several vectors of integers. I never know how long the vectors will eventually be, so I can't preallocate them with vector(). If I preallocate all of the vectors to their maximum size, I will run out of memory. I tried using c() or append() to build up the vectors, as in the following (tried on R 2.1.0 on Linux and R 2.2.1 on MacOS

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:02:13AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:10:12PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com>

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:02:13AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:10:12PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dibyendu Das" <Dibyendu.Das at amd.com> > To: "Adam Nemet" <anemet at apple.com>, "Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Ashutosh Nema" <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>, "Hal > Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 5:45:27 AM > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev]

I'm running dovecot on an OpenBSD 3.7 server and after upgrading to RC25, the daemon started exiting with: Fatal: Time just moved backwards (1173221579 -> 1173221578)! This might cause a lot of problems, so I'll just kill myself now. After upgrading to RC26, I've gotten the error: Error: Time just moved backwards by 1 seconds. I'll sleep now until we're back in

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> Amortize the cost of virtual interrupts by doing both rx and tx work on reception of a receive interrupt if tx napi is enabled. With VIRTIO_F_EVENT_IDX, this suppresses most explicit tx completion interrupts for bidirectional workloads. Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 22

If there are any students looking for ideas, here a couple of projects you might consider. p.s. Anyone know where in the repo the OpenProjects page is? I'd expected it to be the docs/ folder of the LLVM repo, but it wasn't. Transactional Memory Optimization Intel recently introduced transactional memory support in hardware. This project would consist of implementing optimizations

It’s a good thought in general Adam, but I worried about following scenarios: 1) As Dibyendu already mentioned Check1 + Check2 is not very clear. If your intent is superset/union of check1 & check2 then I’m not sure it will always help passes those needs smaller checks (i.e. loop distribution) Every pass has a different need of runtime check, i.e. vectorizer checks each memory against all

This adds a C-only semi-private function for freeing various types of persistent data passed to libnbd. There are some similarities with nbd_add_close_callback which we removed in commit 7f191b150b52ed50098976309a6af883d245fc56. --- generator/generator | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+) diff --git a/generator/generator b/generator/generator

I received at least one email suggesting a Windows-based rendering farm - likely to consist of a few rack systems all running 64-bit Windows. I read an article on Tomshardware which gave some decent insight. What can list participants offer on this concept? I don't care _how_ the resource is implemented - virtual machine, cluster, etc. I just want to get the most resources for the money,

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:05:19PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > There's no need to duplicate page get logic in each action. So this > patch tries to get page and calculate the offset before processing XDP > actions, and undo them when meet errors (we don't care the performance > on errors). This will be used for factoring out XDP logic. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang