search for: nodenum

...erences to "CALL64m": the definition in X86Instr64bit.td, and an entry in X86InstrInfo.cpp. After commenting both out, compilation of a large application fails with: llc: ScheduleDAG.cpp:462: void llvm::ScheduleDAGTopologicalSort::InitDAGTopologicalSorting(): Assertion `Node2Index[SU->NodeNum] > Node2Index[I->getSUnit()->NodeNum] && "Wrong topological sorting"' failed. bugpoint produced this minimal example which triggers the problem: define ccc void @ArgsFree() nounwind { entry: %0 = load void (i8*)** undef, align 4 call ccc void %0(i8* undef) nounw...

...ime are traversed begin to end, and as such are affected by pointer value. The case of "std::set<SUnit*> RejectMemNodes; " is easy. Something like this will work: struct SortSUComp { bool operator()(const SUnit *left, const SUnit *right) const { return left->NodeNum < right->NodeNum; } }; typedef std::set<SUnit*, SortSUComp> SortedSUSet; SortedSUSet RejectMemNodes; But in case of Value * as a key - is there any unique ID that is deterministic and could be used here? As I understand getValueID () is not unique, or could it be su...

We have a test 10gR2 RAC cluster using ocfs2 filesystems for the Clusterware files and the Database files. We need to increase the node slots to accomodate new RAC nodes. Is it true that we will need to umount these filesystems for the upgrade (i.e. Database and Clusterware also)? We are planning to use the following command format to perform the node slot increase: # tunefs.ocfs2 ?N 3

...": the definition in > X86Instr64bit.td, and an entry in X86InstrInfo.cpp. > After commenting both out, compilation of a large application fails with: > llc: ScheduleDAG.cpp:462: void > llvm::ScheduleDAGTopologicalSort::InitDAGTopologicalSorting(): Assertion > `Node2Index[SU->NodeNum] > Node2Index[I->getSUnit()->NodeNum] && "Wrong > topological sorting"' failed. > bugpoint produced this minimal example which triggers the problem: > define ccc void @ArgsFree() nounwind { > entry: >   %0 = load void (i8*)** undef, align 4 >   call...

...nitely possible, but I wonder what people think about it before I even consider this a bug. This looks like a bug. The edge order could even affect some heuristics and influence codegen. I don't have a better idea than using SetVector/MapVector for Value* keys. For SUnits we could just key on NodeNum. Go ahead and file a bug and/or submit a patch. Thanks! -Andy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121016/48a22da7/attachment.html>

...> > X86Instr64bit.td, and an entry in X86InstrInfo.cpp. > > After commenting both out, compilation of a large application fails with: > > llc: ScheduleDAG.cpp:462: void > > llvm::ScheduleDAGTopologicalSort::InitDAGTopologicalSorting(): Assertion > > `Node2Index[SU->NodeNum] > Node2Index[I->getSUnit()->NodeNum] && "Wrong > > topological sorting"' failed. > > bugpoint produced this minimal example which triggers the problem: > > define ccc void @ArgsFree() nounwind { > > entry: > > %0 = load void (i8*)** un...

Andy, This is less of a question but rather a status quo verification. We currently have certain indeterminism in MI scheduler DAG construction - it is introduces by the use of std::map/std::set during edge traversal. Result - a random variation in SUnit edge order (which will remain fixed thereafter). Logically, it is the same DAG, but topologically it is a slightly different one,

...ock_respond; + goto unlock_domain_respond; /* * There is a small window where the joining node may not see the @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int dlm_query_join_handler(struct o2net_msg *msg, u32 len, void *data, "have node %u in its nodemap\n", query->node_idx, nodenum); packet.code = JOIN_DISALLOW; - goto unlock_respond; + goto unlock_domain_respond; } } nodenum++; @@ -821,9 +821,9 @@ static int dlm_query_join_handler(struct o2net_msg *msg, u32 len, void *data, * to be put in someone's domain map. * Also, explicitly disallow joinin...

Hi, I am attempting to modify LLVM to generate code for an architecture which is nearly identical to X86-64, but with a few minor differences. In particular, "call" must always have a register operand, and cannot have a memory operand. Any ideas on how I can express this rule? Thanks, - David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > I am attempting to modify LLVM to generate code for an architecture which is > nearly identical to X86-64, but with a few minor differences. > In particular, "call" must always have a register operand, and cannot have a > memory operand. Any ideas on how I can express this rule? Just get

Found 15 patches (out of 162) that appeared relevant to ocfs2 1.4. Please review. Sunil

Hi all. I have a 50 GB OCFS2 file system. I'm currently using ~26GB of space but df is reporting 43 GB used. Any ideas how to find out where the missing 17GB is at? The file system was formatted with a 16K cluster & 4K block size. Thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...ory accesses. SU0 has a dependency towards SU2, but towards SU1 it is trivially disjoint, and therefore it gets no dependency to SU1 and *neither to SU2*. The AliasChain concept is bypassed. I don't understand how it can first be assumed that an SU becomes AliasChain, and then an SU with lower NodeNum that may alias is allowed to skip its dep to the AliasChain? The BarrierChain is never skipped because addPred() is called directly, and I don't see how it is safe to skip the AliasChain for aliasing SUs, I think it should always be added? In other words, it may be that SU0 has a dep towards SU...

...the problem is that I am seeing an assertion failure with respect to the DAG structure. .file "<stdin>" llc: ~/llvm/lib/CodeGen/ScheduleDAG.cpp:510: void llvm::ScheduleDAGTopologicalSort::InitDAGTopologicalSorting(): Assertion `Node2Index[SU->NodeNum] > Node2Index[I->getSUnit()->NodeNum] && "Wrong topological sorting"' failed. 0 llc 0x000000000117ef3a llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*) + 38 I am wondering if the modification made to the DAG is causing a problem, and can it be done at all? If I can...

Hi everybody, My problem is that I want to add a new node to an existing RAC with ocfs2, without stop the database. If I add a new node to an existing ocfs cluster, do I need to stop the ocfs in the others nodes of the cluster? I've tried to do it without stop the ocfs in the others nodes but I get the following error:

...SU1 it is trivially > disjoint, and therefore it gets > > no dependency to SU1 and * neither to SU2 *. The AliasChain concept is > bypassed. > > > > I don’t understand how it can first be assumed that an SU becomes > AliasChain, and then an SU > > with lower NodeNum that may alias is allowed to skip its dep to the > AliasChain? > > The BarrierChain is never skipped because addPred() is called > directly, and I don’t see how it is > > safe to skip the AliasChain for aliasing SUs, I think it should always > be added? In other words, &gt...

The following series of patches comprises the bulk of our outstanding changes for Ocfs2. Aside from the usual set of cleanups and fixes that were inappropriate for 2.6.25, there are a few highlights: The '/sys/o2cb' directory has been moved to '/sys/fs/o2cb'. The new location meshes better with modern sysfs layout. A symbolic link has been placed in the old location so as to

...therefore it gets >> >> no dependency to SU1 and * neither to SU2 *. The AliasChain concept >> is bypassed. >> >> >> >> I don’t understand how it can first be assumed that an SU becomes >> AliasChain, and then an SU >> >> with lower NodeNum that may alias is allowed to skip its dep to the >> AliasChain? >> >> The BarrierChain is never skipped because addPred() is called >> directly, and I don’t see how it is >> >> safe to skip the AliasChain for aliasing SUs, I think it should >> always b...

Hi All, Are there any special CTDB/SMB configuration settings/dependencies to manage Winbind across CTDB managed servers authenticating via Active Directory(AD)? An example would be Samba's IDMAP backend for Winbind: RID vs. AD or tag Winbind to a primary CTDB node and point other nodes to authenticate from AD via proxy primary CTDB node? /etc/sysconfig/ctdb on all nodes is as follows:

...->ml.node != dlm->node_num) { mlog(0, "putting lock for node %u\n", lock->ml.node); @@ -2976,7 +2963,6 @@ static u8 dlm_pick_migration_target(stru { int i; struct list_head *queue = &res->granted; - struct list_head *iter; struct dlm_lock *lock; int nodenum; @@ -2984,10 +2970,9 @@ static u8 dlm_pick_migration_target(stru spin_lock(&res->spinlock); for (i=0; i<3; i++) { - list_for_each(iter, queue) { + list_for_each_entry(lock, queue, list) { /* up to the caller to make sure this node * is alive */ - lock = list_entry (it...