similar to: where is hypervisor''s kernel log? (xm dmesg just prints the ring buffer)

Hi all, I compiled and installed Xen 3.2 source on FC8. Compilation and installation completed with no errors. However when I try to load Xen I get an error: Kernel panic - Attempted to kill init !!! This is my grub configuration: # grub.conf generated by anaconda # # Note that you do not have to rerun grub after making changes to this file # NOTICE: You have a /boot partition. This means

Hello, I searched the mail list, but can''t find a solution. I have a machine with 8 cores. I want to set the CPU affinity for dom0. For example, let Dom0 use processor 0-3, let guests use 4-7 For guest domains, I can do this by setting the "cpus" For dom0. there''s no such option. The only one I know is in /etc/xen- config.sxp, which has "dom0-cpus" setting.

Yes, what I mean is a target independent node in the ISD::NodeType enum. I already did the node transformation DAGCombiner and target-specific lowering in the first place. It worked. But introducing a specific node will make the logic more clear. For example, in ARM, FDIV is a scalar operation. So, after DAGCombiner and Vector Type legalize, vectorized FDIV has been expanded into scalar versions,

--- On Thu, 9/20/12, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: From: Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New DAG node type for reciprocal operation To: "Weiming Zhao" <weimingz at codeaurora.org> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Date: Thursday, September 20, 2012, 3:32 PM Sounds like a reasonable fit for a target-specific DAG combine. I

Hi, When I’m compiling a code with –fvisibility=hidden –fPIC for ARM, I find that LLVM generates less optimized code than GCC. For example: test.cpp: void init(void *); int g0[100]; int g1[100]; int g2[100]; void foo() { init(&g0); init(&g1); init(&g2); } Clang will emit 1 GOT entry for each GV and 2 instructions to get the address: ldr

Sounds like a reasonable fit for a target-specific DAG combine. I suspect a target specific node wouldn't be necessary and the patterns could be matched directly. -Jim On Sep 20, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Weiming Zhao <weimingz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > In relaxed/fast math mode, if we can convert a/b to a * (1/b), we may get more performance when (1) “b” is loop

Yes, it's a bug. Please review https://reviews.llvm.org/D31716 On 4/5/2017 3:50 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 21 March 2017 at 18:32, Peter Jakubek via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I think the current implementation for the call "bl __aeabi_idiv0" in >> builtins\arm\udivsi3.S is broken. >> At least for the case that __aeabi_idiv0

Hi, For the following code: void foo (); int main () {foo();} llvm emits "bl foo" Then I set foo at a far address in linking: aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc -Wl,--defsym=foo=0x80000000 a.o -o a.exe I got an error from ld: a.c:(.text+0x8): relocation truncated to fit: R_AARCH64_CALL26 against symbol `foo' define in *ABS* section in a.exe The question is: do I

Hi Rafael, Yes, merging gv prevents linker to do garbage collection. Should it be implemented as a peephole pass? If we do it too early, the distance between GVs are not fixed yet. PS: Below is the GCC output with "extern" hidden: ldr r2, .L2 stmfd sp!, {r3, lr} .save {r3, lr} .LPIC0: add r0, pc, r2 bl _Z4initPv(PLT) ldr r1, .L2+4 .LPIC1: add r0, pc, r1 bl _Z4initPv(PLT) ldr

Hi,all, the dmesg have a ring buffer size that is only 16k, so when overflows, some of the printk() messages get lost. SO could someone please give me a solution how to save all log message to a file. I don''t have serial port and cannot use that method to save log on another machine. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xen.org

Hi, In relaxed/fast math mode, if we can convert a/b to a * (1/b), we may get more performance when (1) "b" is loop invariant or (2) arch has faster reciprocal instruction (e.g. recipe/recips on ARM) or (3) arch has no vector div, but has vector mul and recip. So ,with this node type, a div node can be converted to a mul and a recip when desired. Then, each arch can further

Hi, There are cases where LLVM is able to detect some UB but clang is not. For example, unsigned int foo(unsigned int x) { int ret = 0; for(int i = 0; i <= 32; ++i) ret += x >> i; return ret; } When the loop is unrolled, LLVM InstructionSimplify will catch it and return a UNDEF value. How can we let LLVM report some warning message to help developers correct the error?

Hi, I have a question regarding the behavior of weak symbol resolution in LTO: Suppose there are weak definitions in both the source code and some native lib. In non-LTO path, we will use the version from source code. In LTO path, LLVM may discard the definition as it has "linkeonce" linkage type. So the native version will be selected by linker. Now, non-LTO and LTO build may have

I have a large system with pretty voluminous boot time messages that are exceeding the capacity of the ring buffer displayed by "xm dmesg" (i.e., the early messages are lost, and I see only the last messages). With a regular, non-Xen kernel, I use "log_buf_len=size" to enlarge the printk ring buffer size, but this boot option doesn''t seem to work for Xen. Anyone have

I tryed te baloon out a domu and get: xm balloon VS01 1 Command balloon is deprecated But i need it... What can i doo? Dom0: Debian Etch - Kernel 2.6.18-6-xen-686 DomU: Debian Etch - 2.6.18-6-xen-vserver-686 _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Hi, I implemented my own Hypercall in xen. Now I wish my application under dom0 could talk to Xen via my hypercall. Currently, I make a stub in dom0''s kernel, which works as a proxy to forward the request. So, my application first makes a system call to dom0, which then makes hypercall to xen. Is this design necessary? May I call hypercalls from user application under dom0 directly?

On 16 April 2016 at 01:44, Zhao, Weiming via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm building libunwind for ARM baremetal using clang. > I notice that __ELF__ is used in libunwind and the macro is only defined for > Linux target on ARM. > Should we also predefine that for arm-none-eabi target? Do you mean in Clang's ARMTargetInfo::getTargetDefines() ? I think

On Mar 13, 2013, at 10:15 AM, Weiming Zhao <weimingz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Renato, > > It seems to me that LLVM doesn’t parse the inline asm body. It just checks the constraints, (ie. Input/output interface). During ASM writing, it then binding those constraints to placeholders like %0, %1. This is correct. > So it a constraint is a 64-integer type, it *probably*

Hi Renato, It seems to me that LLVM doesn’t parse the inline asm body. It just checks the constraints, (ie. Input/output interface). During ASM writing, it then binding those constraints to placeholders like %0, %1. So it a constraint is a 64-integer type, it *probably* needs paired GPR. Weiming Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The

Hello, Today I updated one of our computers running CentOS 5.3 32bit. After a reboot I notice the following with lsof -i sshd 3638 root 3u IPv6 17317 TCP pc46.astro.up.pt:ssh->119.1.193.205:zephyr-clt (ESTABLISHED) sshd 3639 sshd 3u IPv6 17317 TCP pc46.astro.up.pt:ssh->119.1.193.205:zephyr-clt (ESTABLISHED) What is this connection?