search for: iteratation

In data gioved? 19 marzo 2020 09:10:06 CET, Aki Tuomi ha scritto: > If you are using director, you can issue `doveadm quota recalc -A` on > director, which will then direct it to correct backend. > > For this to work, it requires that you setup doveadm server on the backend, > and configure doveadm_port and doveadm_password on director. It also either > needs iteratable user

In data mercoled? 18 marzo 2020 23:08:27 CET, Alessio Cecchi ha scritto: > Ciao Simone, > > why you want each backend to recalc quota only for its managed users and > not run "doveadm quota recalc -A" only one time from a backend tha > recalc quota for all users? > Because the indexes are local to the backends. If I make the recalc from one backend only, that one

We received no replies to this email that we sent a few days ago. We're not sure why. If we miss something that is obvious to everybody, kindly point it out. We ?ould like to get iteration working, to be able to mass-delete specific emails from all mailboxes, in case of for example received virusses... Here is my question again: Hi, User iteration doesn't work, we're getting:

...eo-mean > Max > Min > > source > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > > ILP > -2.02% > 2.30% > -22.04% > 0.42% > 3.61% > -2.16% > 9 iterations > BURR > 0.70% > 8.62% > -5.56% > 0.66% > 3.09% > -1.40% > 9 iteratation > fast > -1.34% > 9.48% > -6.72% > 0.12% > 3.09% > -2.34% > 5 iterations > source + MI > 0.21% > 3.42% > -1.26% > -0.01% > 0.83% > -0.94% > 5 iterations > > Most of the above performance differences have been correlated with significant change...

Hi all, I 'd like to fetch a list of structures, and found that it could be done via LLVMContextImpl *pImpl = Context.pImpl; pImpl->AnonStructTypes This however needs the inclusion of LLVMContextImpl.h, which is not contained in the includes dir, but in the lib/IR dir (next to the .cpp files) and is not installed under /usr/local/include... Whats the reason for this? Isn't it

On 07.07.2017 10:33, mj wrote: > We received no replies to this email that we sent a few days ago. > We're not sure why. If we miss something that is obvious to everybody, > kindly point it out. > We ?ould like to get iteration working, to be able to mass-delete > specific emails from all mailboxes, in case of for example received > virusses... > > Here is my question

> On 19/03/2020 10:06 Simone Lazzaris <simone.lazzaris at qcom.it> wrote: > > > > In data mercoled? 18 marzo 2020 23:08:27 CET, Alessio Cecchi ha scritto: > > > Ciao Simone, > > > > > > why you want each backend to recalc quota only for its managed users and > > > not run "doveadm quota recalc -A" only one time from a

...eo-mean > Max > Min >  > source > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% > 0.00% >  > ILP > -2.02% > 2.30% > -22.04% > 0.42% > 3.61% > -2.16% > 9 iterations > BURR > 0.70% > 8.62% > -5.56% > 0.66% > 3.09% > -1.40% > 9 iteratation > fast > -1.34% > 9.48% > -6.72% > 0.12% > 3.09% > -2.34% > 5 iterations > source + MI > 0.21% > 3.42% > -1.26% > -0.01% > 0.83% > -0.94% > 5 iterations >  > Most of the above performance differences have been correlated with significant change...

On 3/7/23 23:43, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230306 10:46]: >> On 3/2/23 03:38, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >>> * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230227 08:17]: >>> >>> ... >>>>>> Would this variant be significantly more efficient? >>>>> >>>>> Well, what you are

...rks can be quite significant. Heuristic FP %Diff FP %Diff  FP %Diff INT %Diff INT %Diff INT %Diff iterations   Geo-mean Max Min Geo-mean Max Min   source 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%   ILP -2.02% 2.30% -22.04% 0.42% 3.61% -2.16% 9 iterations BURR 0.70% 8.62% -5.56% 0.66% 3.09% -1.40% 9 iteratation fast -1.34% 9.48% -6.72% 0.12% 3.09% -2.34% 5 iterations source + MI 0.21% 3.42% -1.26% -0.01% 0.83% -0.94% 5 iterations   Most of the above performance differences have been correlated with significant changes in spill counts in hot functions. Note that the ILP scheduler causes a degradation of...

On Jul 2, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3.

On 3/2/23 03:38, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230227 08:17]: > > ... >>>> Would this variant be significantly more efficient? >>> >>> Well, what you are doing is walking the tree to see if there's anything >>> there... then re-walking the tree to store it. So, yes, it's much more >>>

On 2/23/23 20:09, Liam R. Howlett wrote: > * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230222 13:13]: >> On 2/21/23 19:20, Liam R. Howlett wrote: >>> * Danilo Krummrich <dakr at redhat.com> [230217 08:45]: >>>> Add infrastructure to keep track of GPU virtual address (VA) mappings >>>> with a decicated VA space manager implementation.

Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3. This enables the machine scheduler in addition to the SD scheduler. We have verified this by