search for: compiletim

...a Debian GNU/Linux server running SAMBA to share files. The performance seems ok when compared to FTP but our bookkeeping application has it's data as a database stored in a file on the server and the performance for that application is terrible. Investigating this problem I have run across the compiletime option FAST_SHARE_MODES but I have also run across information that tells me this isn't used in current verions of SAMBA or that it is compiled in by default. Can anybody please tell me what is correct. And if you have any other ideas onhow to solve my problem I would gratly appriciate them....

...lected by > @-$(LOPT) -load dcc888$(SHLIBEXT) -branch-counter -stats \ -time-passes -disable-output $< 2>>$@ > in makefile. In report file we write how data should be parsed. Can we do same things now with cmake+lit? This question hits several points at once: - Collecting metrics at compiletime: The Makefiles have definitely been more flexible in this regard. The flip side of the medal however is that the makefiles became so complicated that you typically needed to pass several barely documented flags to them for a simple task like compiling and running the benchmarks without any further...

...le) got with make. Cmake test-suite version has no features to run custom metrics and generate other report type, right? Are these features of make-version of test-suite planned to be added? The lit test-suite runner supports arbitrary metrics, it already features codesizes for different segments, compiletime, linktime, executable hash, execution time. I designed it be easily extensible with further metrics. Not all of these metrics are understood by LNT yet so they may get lost after submission to an LNT database. We do not use GenerateReport.pl and friends in the cmake/lit version anymore, as the ma...

...ng writing the *ONCE stuff. For example there are some 32bit ppc variants with 64bit PTEs. Some for others (I think sparc). And the mm/ code is perfectly fine with these PTE accesses being done NOT atomic. > > The advantage of introducing the SINGLE_{LOAD,STORE}() helpers is that > they compiletime validate this the size is 'right' and can runtime check > alignment constraints. > > IE, they are strictly stronger than {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). >

...ng writing the *ONCE stuff. For example there are some 32bit ppc variants with 64bit PTEs. Some for others (I think sparc). And the mm/ code is perfectly fine with these PTE accesses being done NOT atomic. > > The advantage of introducing the SINGLE_{LOAD,STORE}() helpers is that > they compiletime validate this the size is 'right' and can runtime check > alignment constraints. > > IE, they are strictly stronger than {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). >

...li with setfacl works fine. (see output of getfacl) [root@host test]# getfacl test.txt # file: test.txt # owner: thmuelle # group: Dom"nen-Benutzer user::rwx user:mi:rwx group::r-- mask::rwx other::r-- But my winXP shows me (in security tab) not this new user mi! Did i miss something during compiletime? Here's my output from ldd: [root@host test]# ldd `which smbd` libgssapi_krb5.so.2 => /usr/kerberos/lib/libgssapi_krb5.so.2 (0x40017000) libkrb5.so.3 => /usr/kerberos/lib/libkrb5.so.3 (0x4002b000) libk5crypto.so.3 => /usr/kerberos/lib/libk5crypto.so.3 (0x4008...

...> methods handing the type. > > > > Is there are any limitation I am not aware of (maybe in LLVMV's > register allocator) that would prevent me from using more than 32 > lanes/subregisters? > > There is no known limitation. I chose uint32_t out of concern for > compiletime. Going up for uint64_t should be no problem, I'd be more > concerned about bigger types; hopefully all code properly uses the > LaneBitmask type instead of plain unsigned, you may need a few fixes in > that area. > (For history: We had a scheme in the past where the liveness tracki...

...h make. Cmake test-suite version has no features to run custom metrics and generate other report type, right? > > Are these features of make-version of test-suite planned to be added? The lit test-suite runner supports arbitrary metrics, it already features codesizes for different segments, compiletime, linktime, executable hash, execution time. I designed it be easily extensible with further metrics. Not all of these metrics are understood by LNT yet so they may get lost after submission to an LNT database. We do not use GenerateReport.pl and friends in the cmake/lit version anymore, as the ma...

...-end is writing LLVM calls into the output module, and JITting it as part of the compile process so it can create runtime code, and allowing compiled code to optionally call functions exposing those same LLVM calls to do its own runtime JITting. I'm finding lots of uses for that setup, at both compiletime and runtime, but when the compiled code doesn't actually JIT anything at runtime, optimizing away all those LLVM calls along with the LLVM library extern function declarations would make the resulting .s files have *much* lighter linking requirements and be easier to package and distribute. I...

...le) got with make. Cmake test-suite version has no features to run custom metrics and generate other report type, right? Are these features of make-version of test-suite planned to be added? The lit test-suite runner supports arbitrary metrics, it already features codesizes for different segments, compiletime, linktime, executable hash, execution time. I designed it be easily extensible with further metrics. Not all of these metrics are understood by LNT yet so they may get lost after submission to an LNT database. We do not use GenerateReport.pl and friends in the cmake/lit version anymore, as the ma...

Hello. In my TableGen back end description I need to use more than 32 (e.g., 128, 1024, etc) subregisters per register for my research SIMD processor. I have used so far with success 32 subregisters. However, when using 128 subregisters when I now give the command: llvm-tblgen -gen-register-info Connex.td I get an error message "error:Ran out of lanemask bits to

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:21:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > READ/WRITE_ONCE imply atomicity. Even if their names don't spell it (a > function name doesn't have to spell all of its guarantees). Most of > the uses of READ/WRITE_ONCE will be broken if they are not atomic. In practice, this is certainly the assumption made by many/most users of the *_ONCE() accessors.

...y"? >> >> I have none to hand. > > Whatever triggers the __builtin_memcpy() paths, and even the size==8 > paths on 32bit. > > You could put a WARN in there to easily find them. > > The advantage of introducing the SINGLE_{LOAD,STORE}() helpers is that > they compiletime validate this the size is 'right' and can runtime check > alignment constraints. > > IE, they are strictly stronger than {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). Uh, so, READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic now. I missed that. If READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic, half of kernel is broken. All these loads...

...y"? >> >> I have none to hand. > > Whatever triggers the __builtin_memcpy() paths, and even the size==8 > paths on 32bit. > > You could put a WARN in there to easily find them. > > The advantage of introducing the SINGLE_{LOAD,STORE}() helpers is that > they compiletime validate this the size is 'right' and can runtime check > alignment constraints. > > IE, they are strictly stronger than {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). Uh, so, READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic now. I missed that. If READ/WRITE_ONCE are non-atomic, half of kernel is broken. All these loads...

...calls into the output module, and JITting > it as part of the compile process so it can create runtime code, and > allowing compiled code to optionally call functions exposing those > same LLVM calls to do its own runtime JITting. I'm finding lots of > uses for that setup, at both compiletime and runtime, but when the > compiled code doesn't actually JIT anything at runtime, optimizing > away all those LLVM calls along with the LLVM library extern function > declarations would make the resulting .s files have *much* lighter > linking requirements and be easier to packag...

...sion has no features to run custom metrics and generate other > report type, right? > > > > Are these features of make-version of test-suite planned to be added? > > The lit test-suite runner supports arbitrary metrics, it already features > codesizes for different segments, compiletime, linktime, executable hash, > execution time. I designed it be easily extensible with further metrics. > Not all of these metrics are understood by LNT yet so they may get lost > after submission to an LNT database. > > > > We do not use GenerateReport.pl and friends in the cm...

...to a notion of sub-tests I think. >>> It would be an interesting feature to add. Though if we have the >>> choice to modify a benchmark, we should still prefer smaller >>> independent ones IMO as that gives a better idea when some of the >>> other metrics change (compiletime, codesize, hopefully things like >>> memory usage or performance counters in the future). >> >> Unless the kernels are large, their code size within the context of a >> complete executable might be hard to track regardless (because by >> the time you add in the st...

...for size. > > 26. r286814: [InlineCost] Remove skew when calculating call costs. +3% > > 27. r289755: Make processing @llvm.assume more efficient by using > operand bundles. +6% > > 28. r290086: Revert @llvm.assume with operator bundles > (r289755-r289757). -6% > > <CompileTime.pdf> > > Disclaimer: > > The data is specific for this particular test, so I could have skipped > some commits affecting compile time on other workloads/configurations. > > The data I have is not perfect, so I could have skipped some commits, > even if they impacted comp...

...th "read once > > _and_ atomically"? > > I have none to hand. Whatever triggers the __builtin_memcpy() paths, and even the size==8 paths on 32bit. You could put a WARN in there to easily find them. The advantage of introducing the SINGLE_{LOAD,STORE}() helpers is that they compiletime validate this the size is 'right' and can runtime check alignment constraints. IE, they are strictly stronger than {READ,WRITE}_ONCE().

...c). And the mm/ code is perfectly fine with these > PTE accesses being done NOT atomic. In that case do we even need _ONCE at all? Are there assumptions these are two 32 bit reads? > > > > > The advantage of introducing the SINGLE_{LOAD,STORE}() helpers is that > > they compiletime validate this the size is 'right' and can runtime check > > alignment constraints. > > > > IE, they are strictly stronger than {READ,WRITE}_ONCE(). > >