search for: bailout

...port this direction Thanks for the support. >but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ It's not like I have specific application code in mind. This all depends on what your code has and how often the emulated code has to kick-in. I'm more than happy to implement HWLegal class, and have early bailout available under the switch. I'm also fine having early b...

Thanks, Hal. I plan to post a patch w/o HW Legality early bailout first. That should enable further discussion on where the initial very high cost for "illegal masked load/store/gather/scatter" should be coming from --- like should LoopVectorize provide it? Or should it be provided by TTI? I prefer the latter (TTI) but the first revision of the patch wi...

...ection > Thanks for the support. > >> but are there actually any real world workloads where gather/scatter scalarisation would be worth it, on any micro-architecture? If we don’t have examples and the compile time cost is non-negligible then I think we’d still like to keep the early >bailouts in some form.’ > It's not like I have specific application code in mind. This all depends on what your code has and how often the emulated code has to > kick-in. I'm more than happy to implement HWLegal class, and have early bailout available under the switch. I'm also fine havin...

...gt; out later. Upside is that we can tune the cost model ---- if other parts of the loop has enough > speedup, we don't have to give up entire vectorization simply because masked load/store/gather/scatter > aren't supported on the target. > > If anyone still thinks "early bailout" is valuable, splitting into a separate HWLegal class would be > a cleaner approach than what we have today. We should be able to disable/enable it under an option. > > Let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Hideki Saito > > I support this direction, and agree in...

...er since we are bailing out later. Upside is that we can tune the cost model ---- if other parts of the loop has enough speedup, we don't have to give up entire vectorization simply because masked load/store/gather/scatter aren't supported on the target. If anyone still thinks "early bailout" is valuable, splitting into a separate HWLegal class would be a cleaner approach than what we have today. We should be able to disable/enable it under an option. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Hideki Saito

...->ReadKeyStroke, 2, in, &key); } while (status == EFI_SUCCESS); + Print(L"load_env32 start\n"); if (!setjmp(load_error_buf)) load_env32(NULL); + Print(L"load_env32 done.\n"); /* load_env32() failed.. cancel timer and bailout */ status = cancel_timer(timer_ev); Untested

...t can create an indefinite number of new instructions. In general, it can create new phis, reassociate GEPs, drop "inbounds" and create ugly GEPS. Things I really hate to see before LSR! It also makes strong assumptions about valid input that the caller has to check first and is unable to bailout when it hits a strange case. Supporting SCEVExpander also imposes limitations on SCEV that would be nice to remove some day. > > Well, here I'm not rewriting anything /per se/. I'm generating a whole new expression which represents the value of the index of a GEP in the last loop ite...

...both provide VGA and DVI input. The VGA input works fine, while DVI is broken because of the EDID issue. Using these [1] instructions I have been able to read the EDID and fix it. Unfortunately I'm not able to write it back to the eeprom. I always get this message: i2c i2c-1: sendbytes: NAK bailout. This is what I usually see in /var/log/message [dump of the EDID] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: DVI-D-1: EDID block 0 invalid. [drm] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: DDC responded, but no EDID for DVI-D-1 Do you know why writing to the monitor does not work? I suspect the eeprom is write protected Googling a bit...

...9;ve introduced > this code and unless I misremember he said the current code was OK. Nope, it has always been broken. > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end > callback. Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in the commit message, but lets be more explicit. We have *two* notifiers registered to the mm, A...

...t; } while (status == EFI_SUCCESS); > > + Print(L"load_env32 start\n"); > if (!setjmp(load_error_buf)) > load_env32(NULL); > + Print(L"load_env32 done.\n"); > > /* load_env32() failed.. cancel timer and bailout */ > status = cancel_timer(timer_ev); > > > Untested (James did) It dies in load_env32. $ git grep load_env core/diskstart.inc: pm_call load_env32 core/elflink/load_env32.c:void load_env32(com32sys_t * regs __unused) core/extern.inc: ; elflink/load_env32....

Hi Arnold, Nadav, I've been taking a look at the preamble and bailout tests created by the loop vectorizer, and I can't help but feel it could be rather conservative. I'm not a vectorization expert, so I apologise in advance if say something obviously wrong... I'm looking in particular at the overflow check and the trip count computation. From my reading...

...n > >> general, it can create new phis, reassociate GEPs, drop "inbounds" > >> and create ugly GEPS. Things I really hate to see before LSR! It > >> also makes strong assumptions about valid input that the caller > >> has to check first and is unable to bailout when it hits a strange > >> case. Supporting SCEVExpander also imposes limitations on SCEV > >> that would be nice to remove some day. Andy, Out of curiosity, could you be more specific? What limitations are we talking about? Thanks again, Hal > > > > Well, here I...

...or body 'help' to gluster-users-request at gluster.org You can reach the person managing the list at gluster-users-owner at gluster.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gluster-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: bailout after period of inactivity (mki-glusterfs at mozone.net) 2. AFR problem (maurizio oggiano) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:48:11 -0700 From: mki-glusterfs at mozone.net Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] bailout after period o...

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60704 Priority: medium Bug ID: 60704 Assignee: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org Summary: [nouveau, git regression] - I2C PWM fan control broken on nv50 adt7475 on kernels 3.3.x+ QA Contact: xorg-team at lists.x.org Severity: major Classification: Unclassified

...rpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end > > > callback. > > > > Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in > > the commit message, but lets be more explicit....

...or body 'help' to gluster-users-request at gluster.org You can reach the person managing the list at gluster-users-owner at gluster.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gluster-users digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: bailout after period of inactivity (mki-glusterfs at mozone.net) 2. AFR problem (maurizio oggiano) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:48:11 -0700 From: mki-glusterfs at mozone.net Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] bailout after period o...

...we have discussed this with Jerome back then when I've introduced this code and unless I misremember he said the current code was OK. Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end callback. Has this changed? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs

...19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > process and bailed out so there was nothing to do for the range_end > > callback. > > Single notifiers are not the problem. I tried to make this clear in > the commit message, but lets be more explicit. > > We have *two*...

Please forgive this off-topic post... I've been on this list since 2005 (over 45k messages in my archive) and this is obviously really not something I normally do. If you have a minute and are feeling generous, please visit http://bailout.chipin.com/ and consider helping me out. Sorry if I've offended or wasted your time, but believe me that you don't feel as bad as I do.

...eportedBy: tomi.pievilainen+freedesktop at iki.fi QAContact: xorg-team at lists.x.org If settings in xorg.conf exceed the maximum render target size (4096x4096 here), the system ends up in a state where X can only be activated again after a reboot. Would be better to notice this and just bailout with an error message. When trying to exceed the size with xrandr (for example when rotating a monitor), another monitor is disabled. Rotating back won't re-enable the blank monitor, but rebooting X will help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -------...