search for: memused

Hi, I write again regarding buildSchedGraph(), as I am still not happy about things there. I have found at least two examples which do not work out: 1) SU(2) Store "Value A" SU(1) Store "Value A" SU(0) Load "Value A" If MIsNeedChainEdge() returns false for SU(0) and SU(1), SU(0) is inserted into RejectedMemNodes and removed from its MemUses SU list, as this

...m.rb | 9 ++++++--- 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb b/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb index 3a197f9..cf84ea2 100644 --- a/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb +++ b/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb @@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ def create_vm_xml(name, uuid, memAllocated, memUsed, vcpus, bootDevice, doc.root.elements["devices"].add_element("emulator").add_text("/usr/bin/qemu-kvm") devs = ['hda', 'hdb', 'hdc', 'hdd'] + virtual_devs = ['vda', 'vdb', 'vdc', 'vdd'] which_de...

...Ptr, infoPtr);         memTotal = infoPtr->memory; Find current utilization using following API                 rVal = virDomainMemoryStats (domPtr, memStats, VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_NR, 0) ;         for (i = 0; i < rVal; i++)         {             if (memStats[i].tag == 7)                 memUsed = memStats[i].val;         } Which is the value of "VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_RSS    =    7" Then I calculate util as (memUsed/memTotal) But the value of memUsed exceeds value of memTotal by small amount resulting in memUtil to be around 101 %. I understand that VIR_DOMAIN_MEMORY_STAT_...

I'm also running into an issue with llc. Alchemy is trying to use -march avm2 and other avm2 options, but: llc: for the -march option: : Cannot find option named 'avm2'! llc: Unknown command line argument '-avm2-use-memuser'. Try: 'llc --help' llc: Unknown command line argument '-avm2-package-name=cmodule'. Try: 'llc --help' Was avm2 support dropped?

..., .vm_network_config_mac input, .vm_network_config_ip input { diff --git a/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb b/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb index dd71747..cc2071f 100644 --- a/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb +++ b/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ end def create_vm_xml(name, uuid, memAllocated, memUsed, vcpus, bootDevice, - net_interfaces, diskDevices) + virtio, net_interfaces, diskDevices) doc = Document.new doc.add_element("domain", {"type" => "kvm"}) @@ -78,6 +78,10 @@ def create_vm_xml(name, uuid, memAllocated, memUsed...

I am using LLVM via the Adobe Alchemy project. I'm trying to upgrade LLVM within Alchemy (its v2.1 of opt is crashing), but am running into an issue with llvm-ld. Alchemy is passing -O5 to llvm-ld, but it seems that -O params are no longer accepted by llvm-ld v2.4+ ("llvm-ld: Unknown command line argument '-O5'. Try: 'llvm-ld --help'"). Are -O optimizations

On 2009-07-22 22:14, Simmons, Aaron wrote: > > I’m also running into an issue with llc. Alchemy is trying to use > –march avm2 and other avm2 options, but: > > llc: for the -march option: : Cannot find option named 'avm2'! > > llc: Unknown command line argument '-avm2-use-memuser'. Try: 'llc > --help' > > llc: Unknown command line argument

...#39;s not the case, here. And what puzzles me more is that -- while I don't know what the output *should* look like -- to my eye, strace seems to say that we're getting information back: 1940 read(5, "Node 1 MemTotal: 33011680 kB\nNode 1 MemFree: 32565612 kB\nNode 1 MemUsed: 446068 kB\nNode 1 Active: 57948 kB\nNode 1 Inactive: 77036 kB\nNode 1 Active(anon): 27688 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(anon): 84 kB\nNode 1 Active(file): 30260 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(file): 76952 kB\nNode 1 Unevictable: 52 kB\nNode 1 [...] ----...

hi, i'm writing a target dependent analysis on machine instruction level in llvm 2.0. the analysis needs to know if an inline assembly block reads from memory. the programmer is responsible to add 'm' constraints accordingly. i've seen the operand flags of the inline assembly SDNode and the machine instructions. but it seems that there is no difference between input and output

My apologies. I didn't realize that Adobe had branched llc. What about llvm-ld and -O? -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Török Edwin Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 13:41 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llvm-ld with -O params? On 2009-07-22 22:14, Simmons, Aaron wrote: > > I’m

Hi, I have revisited the issue in buildSchedGraph() I talked about previously, and attached a few patches. The first tries to fix the issue, and the other two try to illustrate associated issues, emerged from applying it. Is it OK to commit the first patch? [PATCH] Bugfix for missed dependency from store to load in buildSchedGraph(). Bugfix for missed dependency from store to load in

...ses from taking up all the ram then swap until the box crashes/freezes? I'm using IEs4Linux and the wineserver seems to start taking up RAM until my box dies, it happens slowly. I am able to kill the sucker now, but I'd like to not have to worry about that. sar -r 01:00:01 PM kbmemfree kbmemused %memused kbbuffers kbcached kbswpfree kbswpused %swpused kbswpcad 01:10:01 PM 5812 949580 99.39 5560 67688 189912 1841696 90.65 33300 01:20:01 PM 4736 950656 99.50 4832 119364 0 2031608 100.00...

Hi, I would be happy to give it a try :-) The fact that AA was added at a later point explains the situation a bit, as much fewer SUs should end up in RejectMemNodes without it. RejectMemNodes is bad in that it mixes all the SUs together again, after having gone through the work of separating them by analyzing their underlying objects. It is also very confusing to have two "stages" of

...seems to show memory use on the rise right up till it hurled[1] (I just stuck another gig in the box monday, so sar only shows 6gig on sunday) Anyone know whats up with this? PS: swap is an LVM partition. Thanks Thomas [0] - http://lwn.net/Articles/83588/ [1] - sar -A 12:00:01 AM kbmemfree kbmemused %memused kbbuffers kbcached kbswpfree kbswpused %swpused kbswpcad ... 02:40:01 AM 197656 5909384 96.76 203308 4066344 16383992 0 0.00 0 02:50:01 AM 191728 5915312 96.86 203320 4066400 16383992 0 0.00 0 03:00:01 AM 185584...

...was not sure how big this impact might be, I made a fix for it quickly just to illustrate what the problem is (one of the previously attached patches). Basically, when an SU's underlying objects are analyzed, the results are remembered by putting the SU into one or both of the (added) sets AliasMemUseDefMIs and NonAliasMemUseDefMIs. Later, MIsNeedChainEdge() can return false, if they were originally in different domains: // A NonAliasing node cannot alias an AliasingNode. This is the case // where MIa had only non-aliasing underlying objects and MIb had // only aliasing underlying objects,...

...; puzzles me more is that -- while I don't know what the output *should* >> look like -- to my eye, strace seems to say that we're getting >> information back: >> >> 1940 read(5, "Node 1 MemTotal: 33011680 kB\nNode 1 MemFree: >> 32565612 kB\nNode 1 MemUsed: 446068 kB\nNode 1 Active: >> 57948 kB\nNode 1 Inactive: 77036 kB\nNode 1 Active(anon): >> 27688 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(anon): 84 kB\nNode 1 Active(file): >> 30260 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(file): 76952 kB\nNode 1 Unevictable: >> 52 kB\nNode 1 >> [......

...case, here. And what >puzzles me more is that -- while I don't know what the output *should* >look like -- to my eye, strace seems to say that we're getting >information back: > >1940 read(5, "Node 1 MemTotal: 33011680 kB\nNode 1 MemFree: >32565612 kB\nNode 1 MemUsed: 446068 kB\nNode 1 Active: >57948 kB\nNode 1 Inactive: 77036 kB\nNode 1 Active(anon): >27688 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(anon): 84 kB\nNode 1 Active(file): >30260 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(file): 76952 kB\nNode 1 Unevictable: >52 kB\nNode 1 >[...] > >--------------...

...re is that -- while I don't know what the output *should* >>>look like -- to my eye, strace seems to say that we're getting >>>information back: >>> >>>1940 read(5, "Node 1 MemTotal: 33011680 kB\nNode 1 MemFree: >>>32565612 kB\nNode 1 MemUsed: 446068 kB\nNode 1 Active: >>>57948 kB\nNode 1 Inactive: 77036 kB\nNode 1 Active(anon): >>>27688 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(anon): 84 kB\nNode 1 Active(file): >>>30260 kB\nNode 1 Inactive(file): 76952 kB\nNode 1 Unevictable: >>>52 kB\nNode 1 &...

Guys, I've heard about some absurd RAM requirements for 9.1, has anybody tested it? e.g. http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=36314 -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-1-minimal-ram-requirements-tp5771583.html Sent from the freebsd-stable mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...ft: 5px; } + .vm_network_config_remove:hover { cursor: pointer; } diff --git a/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb b/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb index 9efda1c..a3391c0 100644 --- a/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb +++ b/src/task-omatic/task_vm.rb @@ -99,10 +99,7 @@ def create_vm_xml(name, uuid, memAllocated, memUsed, vcpus, bootDevice, interface.add_attribute("type", "bridge") interface.add_element("mac", {"address" => nic[:mac]}) interface.add_element("source", {"bridge" => nic[:interface]}) - - if nic[:virtio] - interfac...