search for: suboptimal

Hi. In the current state of gvt-g the user experience is suboptimal. So my question is what are the ETAs for following features: 1. Accelerated virt-manager console using gvt-g device 2. Custom resolutions or dynamic resolution 3. UEFI VMs support (Windows guest) Thanks.

...ws VM display on UEFI? Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: iGVT-g [mailto:igvt-g-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ivanov > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 2:51 AM > To: libvirt-users@redhat.com; igvt-g@lists.01.org; virt-tools-list@redhat.com > Subject: [iGVT-g] GVT-g - suboptimal user experience > > Hi. > In the current state of gvt-g the user experience is suboptimal. > So my question is what are the ETAs for following features: > 1. Accelerated virt-manager console using gvt-g device 2. Custom resolutions > or dynamic resolution 3. UEFI VMs support (Win...

Hi Martijn, thank you for your answer. So the problem would be suboptimal compression due to suboptimal assumption about the input signal, right? What I do not understand is how the format of a FLAC format would be affected by supporting A-law and mu-law files as input (and thus output). Despite of suboptimal performance, is it possible to treat 8bit *-law samples as 8bi...

...> From: Gerd Hoffmann [mailto:gerd@kraxel.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:28 PM > To: Alex Ivanov <gnidorah@ya.ru> > Cc: Yuan, Hang <hang.yuan@intel.com>; libvirt-users@redhat.com; igvt- > g@lists.01.org; virt-tools-list@redhat.com > Subject: Re: [iGVT-g] GVT-g - suboptimal user experience > > Hi, > > > 1. Its about local display / dmabuf feature. Currently user needs to > > use virt-viewer tool. But virt-manager already incorporates graphical > > console. It would be nice if it could support accelerated gvt-g local > > display. &g...

Hi list, I want to find the total maximum resources I can spend given a set allocation proportion and some simple budget constraints. However, I get suboptimal results via lp and friends (i.e. lpSolve and simplex in the linprog and boot) . For example: library(lpSolve) proportions = c( 0.46, 0.28, 0.26) constraints = c( 352, 75, 171) lp(objective.in = proportions, const.mat = diag(c(1,1,1)), const.rhs=constraints, const.dir=rep('<='...

.... > >>  -----Original Message----- >>  From: iGVT-g [mailto:igvt-g-bounces@lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Alex Ivanov >>  Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 2:51 AM >>  To: libvirt-users@redhat.com; igvt-g@lists.01.org; virt-tools-list@redhat.com >>  Subject: [iGVT-g] GVT-g - suboptimal user experience >> >>  Hi. >>  In the current state of gvt-g the user experience is suboptimal. >>  So my question is what are the ETAs for following features: >>  1. Accelerated virt-manager console using gvt-g device 2. Custom resolutions >>  or dynamic resolut...

Hi, > 1. Its about local display / dmabuf feature. Currently user needs to > use virt-viewer tool. But virt-manager already incorporates graphical > console. It would be nice if it could support accelerated gvt-g local > display. virt-manager and virt-viewer essentially run the same code spice client code: both are using the spice-gtk widget. So, if that isn't working

So it looks like this solution is currently not very user friendly. Perhaps Intel could get Red Hat help to make first-class support of gvt feature in virt-manager? 09.05.2019, 10:28, "Gerd Hoffmann" <gerd@kraxel.org>: >   Hi, > >>  1. Its about local display / dmabuf feature. Currently user needs to >>  use virt-viewer tool. But virt-manager already incorporates

Hi Tim and Alex Thanks for your replies. So just to make it clear for me: does this imply that there’s indeed no way on the current version to tell the compiler or Clang to optimize this? Thanks, Joan > On 8 Aug 2019, at 18:30, Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 17:08, Alex Brachet-Mialot via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at

In the following example, LLVM's logic for merging isomorphic types causes two functions in different compilation units with identical function signatures to have different signatures in the resulting bitcode: =========================== $ cat demo-struct1.c struct foo { int x; }; struct bar { int x; }; struct foo *return_arg_1(struct foo *a, struct bar *b) { return a; } $ cat demo-struct2.c

...sing frame index should be done like this: some_register = frame_pointer + offset ...... [some_register] Since frame index eliminations happens after register allocation, I must make sure 'some_register' does not participate in normal register allocation. That approach sounds suboptimal. By "reserving" one register we can already cause some values to be spilled, that otherwise would be stored in register. The lifetimes of those 'some_register' is likely to be very small (1 instruction), so "reserving" it everywhere is not good. Ideal approach would be...

Hi, For the program below, where "incr" and "Arr" are globals ================================= int incr; float Arr[1000]; int foo () {   float x = 0;   int newInc = incr+1;   for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {     for (int j = 0; j < 1000; j += incr) {         x += (Arr[i] + Arr[j]);     }   }   return x; } ================================= The SCEV expression computed

...#39;t know much about this, but maybe -mllvm -unroll-count=1 can be used as a workaround? /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Brent Walker Sent: den 28 mars 2012 03:18 To: llvmdev Subject: [LLVMdev] Suboptimal code due to excessive spilling Hi, I have run into the following strange behavior and wanted to ask for some advice. For the C program below, function sum() gets inlined in foo() but the code generated looks very suboptimal (the code is an extract from a larger program). Below I show the 32-bit...

...; > retl > > .cfi_endproc > > > > .comm _pp,3,0 > > .section __DATA,__data > > .globl _scscx > > .p2align 3 > > _scscx: > > .long _pp > > > > > > Again, the _scscx is loaded three times instead of reusing a register, > which is suboptimal. > > > > > > NOW, if I replace the original code by this: > > > > int pp[3]; > > int *scscx = pp; > > int tst( int i, int j, int k ) > > { > > scscx[0] = i; > > scscx[1] = j; > > scscx[2] = k; > > return 0; > > }...

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 13:04 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > > That approach sounds suboptimal. By "reserving" one register we can already > > cause some values to be spilled, that otherwise would be stored in > > register. > > Right. > > PowerPC has the same problem in certain cases. For example, vector loads > only support reg+reg addressing, which...

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95334 Bug ID: 95334 Summary: GM107 with 2560x1440 display on HDMI selects suboptimal resolution 1920x1080 Product: xorg Version: 7.7 (2012.06) Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau Assignee: nouveau at lists.fr...

...vl _scscx, %edx movb %cl, 1(%edx) movl _scscx, %ecx movb %al, 2(%ecx) xorl %eax, %eax popl %esi popl %ebp retl .cfi_endproc .comm _pp,3,0 .section __DATA,__data .globl _scscx .p2align 3 _scscx: .long _pp Again, the _scscx is loaded three times instead of reusing a register, which is suboptimal. NOW, if I replace the original code by this: int pp[3]; int *scscx = pp; int tst( int i, int j, int k ) { scscx[0] = i; scscx[1] = j; scscx[2] = k; return 0; } I get the following: ; Function Attrs: nofree norecurse nounwind optsize uwtable define i32 @tst(i32 %i, i32 %j, i32 %k) lo...

...ks for the testcase; fixed in r75142. > Note that on x86-32 it produces correct code (though not optimal either; it > doesn’t use movd). Also, notice that the last two instructions above should > ideally just be a single movd to memory, instead of first writing to a GP > register. The suboptimal code on x86-32 is because there aren't patterns for i32 extract from <2 x i32> yet (so it gets expanded through memory). The suboptimal code on x86-64 is due to a missing dagcombine; it doesn't know that extracting an i64 and truncating it to an i32 is equivalent to extracting an i32...

...to run these services as a non-root user. I can control the services using upstart as a non root user and can start and stop the service using initctl without any problems. I''m trying to use puppet to start and stop these services; however, it''s not obvious if it is possible. A suboptimal approach appears to be one in which I create a service.conf file in /etc/init - this service.conf file can su to the user and run the service. I think this is suboptimal, as it''s not working with the user level control mechanisms that have already been designed into upstart. So I''...

...gt; > some_register = frame_pointer + offset > ...... [some_register] > > Since frame index eliminations happens after register allocation, I must > make sure 'some_register' does not participate in normal register > allocation. Right. > That approach sounds suboptimal. By "reserving" one register we can already > cause some values to be spilled, that otherwise would be stored in > register. Right. PowerPC has the same problem in certain cases. For example, vector loads only support reg+reg addressing, which means you have to load the offset...