search for: discontiguities

I'm a bit confused by this subthread -- doesn't BOLT have the exact same CFI bloat issue? From my cursory reading of the propellor doc, the CFI duplication is _necessary_ to represent discontiguous functions, not anything particular to the way Propellor happens to generate those discontiguous functions. And emitting discontiguous functions is a fundamental goal of this, right? On Wed,

We would also like to clarify on the misconceptions around CFI Instructions: There are two things that need to be clarified here: 1) Extra CFI FDE entries for basic blocks does not mean more dynamic instructions are executed. In fact, they do not increase at all. Krys talked about this earlier. 2) We do deduplication of common static CFI instructions in the FDE and move it to the CIE . Hence,

Some more information about the relaxation pass whose effectiveness and convergence guarantees were listed as a concern: TLDR; Our relaxation pass is similar to what LLVM’s MCAssembler does but with a caveat for efficiency. Our experimental results show it is efficient and convergence is guaranteed. Our relaxation pass is very similar to what MCAssembler does as it needs to solve the same

Linus et al, Here are the ocfs2 updates for 2.6.35. There are two major changes. Mark added allocation reservations to our node-local allocators. This gets us much more contiguousness when many processes are growing files in parallel. On the other end of contiguousness, ocfs2 has had a major limitation since the beginning. When ocfs2 needs new inodes, it has always grown its metadata

All, We are pleased to announce the release of OCFS2 1.4.10-1 and OCFS2 tools 1.6.3-2 for Oracle Linux 5 Update 7 and higher and Redhat Enterprise Linux 5 Update 7 and higher. Oracle's Unbreakable Linux Network users who are subscribing to the "OCFS2 1.4 packages for Enterprise Linux 5" channel can upgrade to this release by running up2date. Red Hat's Enterprise Linux 5

Is there large value from deferring the block ordering to link time? That is, does the block layout algorithm need to consider global layout issues when deciding which blocks to put together and which to relegate to the far-away part of the code? Or, could the propellor-optimized compile step instead split each function into only 2 pieces -- one containing an "optimally-ordered" set of

That change converted the (wrong) assumption of contiguous nodes'' memory to a similarly wrong one of assuming discontiguous memory (i.e. each node having separate E820 table entries). The code ought to be able to deal with both, though, and I hope this change makes it so. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> --- 2009-08-24.orig/xen/arch/x86/srat.c 2009-08-28

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:41 PM Maksim Panchenko via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > *Pessimization/overhead for stack unwinding used by system-wide profilers > and > for exception handling* > > Larger CFI programs put an extra burden on unwinding at runtime as more CFI > (and thus native) instructions have to be executed. This will cause more > overhead

Hello, I wanted to consolidate all the discussions and our final thoughts on the concerns raised. I have attached a document consolidating it. BOLT’s performance gains inspired this work and we believe BOLT is a great piece of engineering. However, there are build environments where scalability is critical and memory limits per process are tight : * Debug Fission,

Greetings, We, at Google, recently evaluated Facebook’s BOLT, a Post Link Optimizer framework, on large google benchmarks and noticed that it improves key performance metrics of these benchmarks by 2% to 6%, which is pretty impressive as this is over and above a baseline binaryalready heavily optimized with ThinLTO + PGO. Furthermore, BOLT is also able to improve the performance of binaries

Hello Maksim, On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:52 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > I want to clarify one thing before sending a detailed reply: did you > evaluate > > BOLT on Clang built with basic block sections? > In the makefile you reference, > > there are two versions: a “vanilla” and a default built with function > sections.

Hello Maksim, On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:57 AM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Cool. The new numbers look good. If you run BOLT with jemalloc library > > preloaded, you will likely get a runtime closer to 1 minute. We’ve noticed > that > > compared to the default malloc, it improves the multithreaded > > performance and brings down memory usage

> On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com <mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com>> wrote: > I don’t know much about SEH and haven’t had time to really dig into this, but the idea of outlining functions that need to know about the frame layout sounds a bit scary. Is it

Some background: A while back while working on code to read / write PDB files, I came up with Yet Another Stream Abstraction. Note that LLVM already has a few. Off the top of my head, theres: 1) `MemoryBuffer` and its associated class hierarchy 2) `raw_ostream` and it's associated classes. 3) `DataExtractor` which is used for reading from a StringRef. There's probably more, and

We are going to be at the llvm-dev meeting the next two days. We will get back to you after that. Sri On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:07 PM Maksim Panchenko <maks at fb.com> wrote: > Hi Sri, > > > > Thank you for replying to our feedback. 7 out 12 high-level concerns have > been > > answered; 2 of them are fully addressed. The rest are being tracked at the > >

The patchset will add basic NUMA support to Xen (hypervisor only). We borrowed from Linux support for NUMA SRAT table parsing, discontiguous memory tracking (mem chunks), and cpu support (node_to_cpumask etc). The hypervisor parses the SRAT tables and constructs mappings for each node such as node to cpu mappings and memory range to node mappings. Using this information, we also modified the

We currently compare the sum of the pages found in the SRAT table to the address of the highest memory page found via the e820 table to validate the SRAT. This is completely bogus if there''s any kind of discontiguous memory, where the sum of the pages could be much smaller than the address of the highest page. I think all that''s necessary is to validate that each usable memory

> Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:49:50 -0700 > From: Michael Lewis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status of stack walking in LLVM on Win64? > Message-ID: > <CAEm7p3svyOi6JU6r_RCCtRfGhTgTHeRw-SR0iD+9Edv2pi71Dw at

> On Nov 18, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com <mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bob

Does this release also include what our DBA referenced below regarding indexed directories fix? Thanks,? ? George Burgos Linux Systems Administrator LPIC I/OCA-DBA Senior Systems Analyst Powell Industries, Inc. gburgos at powellind.com Tel:???????? (713)947-4493 Fax:??????? (713)943-1268 -----Original Message----- From: Hu, Linn Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 1:20 PM To: OracleDBA; _LinuxAdmins