search for: spent

...R (as in 3 just days) and I've been using it to do some pretty basic things. I am frustratingly stuck on one point, and am so so so close to figuring it out, but just far enough away to ask for some (perhaps embarrassingly easy) help. I have a dataset, visitors, that has a variable called Time.Spent. Time.Spent consists of times in the format hh:mm:ss , and it is a measurement, kind of like a timer, of the amount of time someone spent in a museum exhibit. I need to find the average time spent. I've figured the easiest way to do this would be to convert it into seconds. I found a functio...

Hello, I'm working on an Asterisk configuration for a call center, and they bill based on the time spent talking to an agent, but not for any time spent waiting in a queue. The CDR information contains the entire duration of the call as billable seconds, including time spent waiting in the queue. I would like the billable seconds to only include the time spent actually talking to an agent. I am usi...

Hi, having running centOS-4.4 on a really fast machine (16 GB memory, 8 Opteron CPU's, SATA drives). Then making an update by using the Centos-5 CD's. The start was fast, but during update, the installer spents a very, very long wallclock time during selinx updating: for about 1/2 hour the updater runs in a restorecon/find sequence. And at the end, before the MBR is written, it spents again a long time in "install". Can somebody explain this? Regards -- Joachim Backes <joachim.backes at...

...came a bit slower since I did that 3.5% measurement? > Or maybe the Localizer pass changes the structure of the program so that another later pass gets a different compile time profile? > Basically, I'd have to do more experiments to figure that one out. > > As far as where time is spent in the gisel-passes itself, on average, I saw the following on the latest CTMark experiment I ran: > Avg compile time spent in IRTranslator: 4.61% > Avg compile time spent in InstructionSelect: 7.51% > Avg compile time spent in Legalizer: 1.06% > Avg compile time spent in Localizer: 0.7...

...t slower since I did that 3.5% > measurement? > Or maybe the Localizer pass changes the structure of the program so that > another later pass gets a different compile time profile? > Basically, I'd have to do more experiments to figure that one out. > > As far as where time is spent in the gisel-passes itself, on average, I > saw the following on the latest CTMark experiment I ran: > Avg compile time spent in IRTranslator: 4.61% > Avg compile time spent in InstructionSelect: 7.51% > Avg compile time spent in Legalizer: 1.06% > Avg compile time spent in Localizer...

Hi there, (context: I was optimizing Roundcube mailbox list server response, and in that 300-400ms response time, around 170ms is spent on single fgets() call which is waiting IMAP repsonse to "SELECT MyMailbox" command) I straced dovecot and of the whole request/response process, around 30ms is spent for everything else, and overwhelming majority of time (150-170ms) is spent for reading dovecot-uidlist file for given ma...

...n top of it). > I have other related changes coming next, but I would like to tackle > them one at a time. > Here's an update. After http://reviews.llvm.org/D8372 , I updated the profiling data. https://people.freebsd.org/~davide/llvm/lld-03162015.svg It seems now 85% of CPU time is spent inside FileArchive::buildTableOfContents(). In particular, 35% of the samples are spent inserting into unordered_map, so there's maybe something we can do differently there (e.g. , Rui's proposal of a concurrent map doesn't seem that bad). Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved...

...45558 55232 amador 0 0 0 0 0 .... The goal is to explain variation in spending patterns, which are presumably the result of characteristics for each county. I may treat the problem like a simple linear regression problem for each category, but by definition, money spent in one category will take away the amount of money that can be spent in any other category---and each county is not allocated the same amount of money to spend. I have constructed proportions of amount spent on each category and have conducted quasibinomial regression, on each dependent outcome bu...

Hi list, I have data in a dataframe t1, with a column for different amounts spent, a column what it was spent on, and a column with dates, from which I create a new column with months. Example: amount <- rep(c(10,20,30),3) what <- rep(c("food","books","cycling"),3) when <- c(rep("2008-09-05",5),rep("2008-10-07",4)) t1...

...see >>>>>> about 26% compile time increase against the current -O0 default (compared to >>>>>> 28% increase for regalloc greedy without your patch). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Interesting, I guess a lot of time is spent in the coalescer. Could you give >>>>>> a try with -join-liveintervals=false? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With adding -join-liveintervals=false, I see the compile time increase going >>>>>> up to 28% again. >&gt...

...the same analysis on each of the eleven values of data2. However, when I assign to data2 the value of one of my data frames, e.g. data2 <- Florida, and then attach data2, I get the warning The following object(s) are masked from data2 ( position 3 ) : Day Division SchedNo Spent TimeEnter TimeInStr The following object(s) are masked from Alb3 : Day Division SchedNo Spent TimeEnter TimeInStr The following object(s) are masked from data2 ( position 5 ) : Day Division SchedNo Spent TimeEnter TimeInStr I am having trouble finding an...

Hey guys, I'm working on the S3D Benchmark and notice that CodeGenPrepare::OptimizeMemoryInst(...) in lib/Transforms/Scalar/CodeGenPrepare.cpp isn't scaling well. A whopping 99.3% of the compilation time for one file is spent in this function. The User Time for this compilation is 3166 seconds with a stock LLVM 3.1. If I disable the calls to OptimizeMemoryInst(...), the compilation time drops to 76 seconds. It appears that OptimizeMemoryInst(...) was tweaked for compilation time improvements in the past, but unfortunat...

...are from a Release build with asserts turned off (this made a big difference), and the percentages are from a Release+Profiling build. For 1k iterations, the test took about 640ms on my desktop machine, ie 0.64ms per module. Looking at the profiling results, it looks like about 47% of the time is spent in PassManagerImpl::run, and another 47% is spent in addPassesToEmitMC, which feels like it could be avoided by doing that just once. Of the time spent in PassManagerImpl::run, about 35% is spent in PassManager overhead such as initializeAnalysisImpl() / removeNotPreservedAnalysis() / removeDeadPa...

.... ComputeKnownBits contributes 7.8%, but calls from InstCombine contribute only 2.6% to the total execution time. Caching only covers InstCombine use of KnownBits. This may explain limited gain or even slight degradation if KnownBits are not re-computed as often as we thought. Most of the time is spent in instruction visitor routines. CmpInst, LoadInst, CallInst, GetElementPtrInst and StoreInst are the top contributors. ICmpInst 6.1% LoadInst 5.5% CallInst 2.1% GetElementPtrInst 2.1% StoreInst 1.6% Out of 35% InstCombine time, about half is spent in the top 5...

hi, I am trying to find out the avg cpu time spent in each of my user methods (exclusive of other methods invoked by a method). Hence the following snippet failed miserably: ----------------------- pid$target:a.out::entry { time[probefunc] = timestamp;} pid$target:a.out::return { @spent[probefunc] = avg(timestamp - time[probefunc]);}...

...ael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here's an update. > > > > After http://reviews.llvm.org/D8372 , I updated the profiling data. > > > > https://people.freebsd.org/~davide/llvm/lld-03162015.svg > > It seems now 85% of CPU time is spent inside > > FileArchive::buildTableOfContents(). > > In particular, 35% of the samples are spent inserting into > > unordered_map, so there's maybe something we can do differently there > > (e.g. , Rui's proposal of a concurrent map doesn't seem that bad). > &g...

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com>wrote: > Ignoring FE time which can be fully parallelized and assuming 10% > compile time is spent in serial module passes, 25% time is spent in > CGSCC pass, the maximum speed up that can be gained by using function > level parallelism is less than 3x. Even adding support for parallel > compilation for leaves of CG in CGSCC pass won't help too much -- the > percentage of leaf f...

Okay, so I spent a lot of time locating the patch that prevents me from moving my application, GSAK, from 0.9.16 to the latest version of wine. I spent a lot of time recompiling different bisected versions of wine in order to do just that. I even submitted a bugzilla report. As it turns out, it was the patch I s...

...t >> 3.5% measurement? >> Or maybe the Localizer pass changes the structure of the program so that >> another later pass gets a different compile time profile? >> Basically, I'd have to do more experiments to figure that one out. >> >> As far as where time is spent in the gisel-passes itself, on average, I >> saw the following on the latest CTMark experiment I ran: >> Avg compile time spent in IRTranslator: 4.61% >> Avg compile time spent in InstructionSelect: 7.51% >> Avg compile time spent in Legalizer: 1.06% >> Avg compile tim...

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:44 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > We now have true zeroing support in oVirt imageio, thanks for that. > > However a problem is that ‘qemu-img convert’ issues zero requests for > the whole disk before starting the transfer. It does this using 32 MB > requests which take approx. 1 second each to execute on the oVirt side. >