search for: timeoutwork

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "timeoutwork".

2009 Mar 02
0
[LLVMdev] Tight overlapping loops and performance
...levant to your actual issue. In general, you'll probably get better results from LLVM with properly nested loops; LLVM's loop optimizers don't know how to deal with deal with overlapping loops. I'd suggest writing it more like the following: int timeout = 2000; int loopcond; do { timeoutwork(); do { timeout--; loopcond = computationresult(); } while (loopcond && timeout); } while (loopcond); -Eli
2009 Mar 02
2
[LLVMdev] Tight overlapping loops and performance
I was playing around in x86 assembly the other day, looking at ways to optimize my cooperative multitasking system. Currently, it uses a 'timeout' counter that is decremented each time through a loop, letting me stop the loop and go to the next cooperative thread if the loop runs a little long. The asm has two overlapping loops: --- _main: mov ecx, 1000000000 timeoutloop:
2006 Dec 15
3
can Timeout::timeout(...) be used in a Worker ?
Hi , I was wondering if anyone else has tried to use the Timeout::timeout method in a backgroundrb Worker and had Timeout raise an exception after the allotted amount of time . I ask because i have written a test script to make sure Timeout would work . I have tested the script by directly feeding it to ruby with : $ ruby test_script.rb and piping the script to the rails console: $
2009 Mar 02
3
[LLVMdev] Tight overlapping loops and performance
...apped into and out of memory and not holding them in registers. That's why I was asking about other optimization passes, at first glance -mem2reg looked like a good candidate, but I didn't notice any improvement using it blindly. > int timeout = 2000; > int loopcond; > do { > timeoutwork(); > do { > timeout--; > loopcond = computationresult(); > } while (loopcond && timeout); > } while (loopcond); My current implementation uses something very similar, but if you'll notice the difference between this example and my examples is that the branch for checking...