search for: permeability

Displaying 17 results from an estimated 17 matches for "permeability".

Did you mean: mergeability
2009 Nov 01
1
wilcox.test construction in r
Hi, I am very confused with constructing the wilcox.test in R. I have two populations 'original' and 'test'. I want to know if the 'test' is generally 'lower' than original. I use alpha of 0.05. So do I write the function as wilcox.test(original, test, alternative="l")? or wlcox.test(original, test, alternative = "g")? or wilcox.test(test,
2011 Feb 03
0
Generalized Estimating Equations and a Reviewer Question I can’t answer
...use I often deal with repeatedly sampled pairs of data from the same source, and my reading (and my statistician) tells me that GEE is an appropriate method for that type of data set. I’m using the geeglm program from the geepack download. My data is correlated data from two estimates of vascular permeability in a rat model of cerebral tumor. One estimate, the MRI estimate, can be conducted non-invasively and repeatedly. The other estimate, the QAR estimate, can be done just once since it involves sacrificing the animal. The MRI estimate needs to be characterized as to its correlation with the QAR es...
2018 Apr 11
0
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > Hi Mehdi, > > > > Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which > pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. > > - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect > compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase.
2018 Apr 11
3
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
Hi Mehdi, Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase. That was the reason why so many optimization were moved from the link-phase to the parallel compile-phase for FullLTO
2018 Apr 11
2
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization
2018 Apr 11
0
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > > > > > *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson < > tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
2018 Apr 11
2
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> Hi Mehdi, >> >> >> >> Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which >> pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. >> >> -
2018 Apr 11
1
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
See attached some quick slides (backup from the dev meeting talk) about the pass pipeline. -- Mehdi Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 12:18, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> *Sent:*
2018 Apr 11
0
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
Hi Teresa, Thank you so much for your reply! I am on vacation until the end of this week and on EuroLLVM next week, so I have to apologize in advance that my replies are delayed. >>Right - see my reply on this from last night, at the very least the ThinLTO importing thresholds will need retuning if we will >>perform optimizations like unrolling/vectorization/etc that tend to
2010 Sep 30
2
GUI Red-R
Que tal Miguel.Bueno, este es un buen intento para los programas que manejan el denominado "Flujo de conocimiento", que lo que tratan es de ordenar los pasos que intervienen en un proceso (proceso=análisis, reporte, etc.) y la ayuda que brindan los softwares, es que los objetos ya definidos para las distintas tareas.Hay algunos de estos programas: Enterprice guide y miner de SAS,
2006 Mar 24
0
Random covariate in survreg (Survival)
Dear R Listers- I am attempting to analyse the survival of seeds in cages (exclosures) that differ in their permeability to rainforest mammals. Because I did not observe the moment of seed disappearance, my data is interval censored. This limits my options for analysis (as I understand it) to survreg, in the survival package. Because I repeated the experiment in 8 sites, I have a random covariate. Additiona...
2018 Apr 11
0
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
Hi, It is non trivial to recompute summaries (which is why we have summaries in the bitcode in the first place by the way), because bitcode is expensive to load. I think shipping two different variant of the bitcode, one with and one without summaries isn't providing much benefit while complicating the flow. We could achieve what you're looking for by revisiting the flow a little. I
2019 Aug 03
1
[PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker
On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 04:06:13AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2019/8/1 ??2:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:46:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: > >> We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads > >> calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy > >> system, there would be many factors
2019 Aug 01
0
[PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker
On 2019/8/1 ??2:29, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:46:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: >> We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads >> calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy >> system, there would be many factors that may slow down the >> synchronize_rcu() which makes it unsuitable to be
2019 Jul 31
2
[PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:46:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads > calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy > system, there would be many factors that may slow down the > synchronize_rcu() which makes it unsuitable to be called in MMU > notifier. > > A solution is SRCU but its
2019 Jul 31
2
[PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 04:46:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: > We used to use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker. This leads > calling synchronize_rcu() in invalidate_range_start(). But on a busy > system, there would be many factors that may slow down the > synchronize_rcu() which makes it unsuitable to be called in MMU > notifier. > > A solution is SRCU but its
2018 Apr 10
3
exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization pipeline
Hi David, Thank you so much for your reply! >> You're dealing with a situation where you are shipped BC files offline and then do one, or multiple builds with these BC files? Yes, that’s exactly the case. >> If the scenario was more like a naive build: Multiple BC files generated on a single (multi-core/threaded) machine (but some Thin, some >> Full) & then fed to the