I am running opencl on my mac, with gpu(HD 4000). I want to find some profiler tool(for example, bandwidth usage, etc). I have installed intel#INDE but don't know how to use. For example, when I tried to use system analyzer, it asks me for an IP to connect. I type the localhost. Then it says "connection to graphics monitor has failed. Make sure the graphics monitor is running on the target machine". Don't know how to solve this.
Anyone know how to solve it? Or anyone know how to profile openCL programs for HD 4000 on macOS? Thank you.
Related
On starting any Genymotion device, I get the error:
Unable to start the virtual device. VirtualBox cannot start the virtual device. Your CPU is incompatible with virtualization technologies. For more information, check the log files. Please refer to: www.genymotion.com/faq/logs
My CPU is the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz Quad-Core Processor, which includes a built in graphics chip (I think that's what it's called). I think my question is, is my CPU really incompatible with Genymotion? I have used VirtualBox before, so I know I can run a virtual machine. Is there any way to get around this error, or is my CPU really incompatible with this? If there is any questions on anything that would help, please ask, because I would really like to get Genymotion working.
Are you trying to run Genymotion from a VM? If so, it will not work. Genymotion needs to be run from a real OS, not a VM.
Otherwise, see Genymotion FAQ
I have been wanting to work with Vulkan, the new graphics API and have gotten it up and running with no problems on Windows 7. However I can't get Vulkan to work on linux. When I try running any of the LunarG samples, or even my own code, vkEnumeratePhysicalDevices always says that there are no physical devices. Here is my setup:
OS: Ubuntu 16.04 (LTS) [x64]
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GT 730 2GB GDDR5
Driver: NVIDIA Binary driver - version 364.19 from nvidia-364 (open source)
Vulkan SDK: LunarG v1.0.17.0 [ latest version]
I was wondering if maybe there's a file for my GPU that I need to set an environment variable for, but I really don't know. As I said before, this worked on Windows 7 perfectly, but I can't seem to get this to work this the above configuration. I am able to create an instance with the LunarG standard validation layer and the correct extensions, but vkEnumeratePhysicalDevices doesn't find any physical devices. It doesn't give an error, just says it can't find any physical devices. This has really got me stumped and I would really appreciate the help. Thanks!
Depending on your distribution you may have to install the nvidia-utils package. See this issue on my Vulkan repo for details.
If this isn't the case for you check the directories Karl mentioned and check if there is no other ICD (maybe one from Intel) that may cause troubles. If you're on an optimus system with dual GPU you may need to explicitly activate the NVIDIA GPU.
The 730 should work fine on Linux, at least judging from the Linux hardware reports I got on my database like this one.
You shouldn't have to set an environment variable if the driver installed properly.
One way to check for a proper installation is to look for the JSON file that identifies the driver. For example, an nvidia driver will place a file called nvidia_icd.json in /etc/vulkan/icd.d/. /usr/share/vulkan/icd.d/ is another standard, but less common location.
It may also be the case that your GPU does not support Vulkan. Be sure to check your GPU vendor's web pages to confirm support. You may want to download the driver straight from the vendor's site in order to get one that they say has Vulkan support.
And are you sure that using the "Additional Drivers" page is supposed to give you a Vulkan driver?
You can refer to the loader documentation in the docs section at https://vulkan.lunarg.com for more info.
I am kinda new to Android Studio & stuff. So today, I was installing the Android Studio with the SDK Manager. All was going smooth until an error came up which says:
Unable to install Intel HAXM
Your CPU does not support required features (VT-x or SVM).
Unfortunately, your computer does not support hardware accelerated virtualization.
Here are some of your options:
Use a physical device for testing
Develop on a Windows/OSX computer with an Intel processor that
supports VT-x and NX
Develop on a Linux computer that supports VT-x or SVM
Use an Android Virtual Device based on an ARM system image (This
is 10x slower than hardware accelerated virtualization)
I've attached a pic of my system specs. Can someone please throw some light on this issue?
Thanks
It is because you had not intialize virtual technology in your device.You Need to go in BOOT Option before starting WINDOWS OS and enable VT-x from there>
The option of enabling Virtual technology is putted in different option depends on device manufacturer
Edit: Android Studio emulator won't run on Windows with an AMD processor. The error message is kind of misleading, as it suggests the problem is with your CPU. But it is within the troubleshoot message: "Windows/OSX computer with an Intel processor". Basicallly, that means it is not going to work properly in your current setup. Either try installing Linux and running Android Studio on that (which might come with its own issues), using a physical device for testing or use the slow ARM images.
You are using an AMD processor. SVM is AMD technology and VT-x is Intel technology. So you won't be able to get VT-x to run, but SVM might be possible.
As another poster had suggested, virtualization may have been disabled in the BIOS. There may be an option to enable virtualization. It does however seem to happen that virtualization is activated in the BIOS and Android-Studio does not recognize that. I have not figured out how to fix that either.
You could use the emulator with an ARM image, which will be very slow. Alternatively, you could use another emulator that is not integrated into Android-Studio.
I'm building an IOKit CFPlugin driver for OS X. I'll be working with network data coming in that will be translated to MIDI data. No hardware is involved other than the built-in Airport. I have experience with drivers on Windows machines and firmware but this is my first dip into doing it on the Mac. So far things are going pretty well, but the Apple documentation sez: "For safety reasons, you should not load your driver on your development machine."
I only have one Mac. I really don't want two Macs- sorry, Apple. Should I take this warning seriously? Are there things I need to know?
Thanks, Tom Jeffries
You could also consider running OS X inside a VM as your testbed. It would surely be much more convenient that having a separate boot volume.
The warning is rather poorly worded; what you should consider doing is using a separate boot volume (partition) for trying out your driver, since it's possible to arbitrarily hose your system with your driver.
If you're doing kernel development on any OS that isn't isolated from your main system (via a VM, alternate boot disk, etc.), you're crazy!
What may be a bigger issue is that you can't do any kernel debugging, because the only option for that is to use GDB on a remote OS X system. For this, you may want to consider running OS X in virtualization.
you DEFINITELY want to have some way to recover a fubar kext installation: a bootable external drive or something you can quickly restore from-- this is the main reason for Apple's warning against running in-development-kernel-extensions on your production machine.
Nicholas is right that in order to debug using gdb (the only way in kernel space) you do need two machines. I've never tried using a VM as Coxy suggests: but I guess it's feasible (assuming that you run your kext on the virtual machine and use the real host machine to run gdb).
My preferred method for tracing and debugging in the kernel is kprintf() routed to firewire (aka firewire kprintf (man fwkpfv) ). for this you do need two machines with firewire ports.
finally, being an old computer musician myself, I wonder why you want to program a MIDI synthesizer (or transformer) on the network stack level. my guess is that you would have a much more gratifying experience working in userland (where you can use floating point math...)
if you need some hints or tips, feel free to get in touch...
|K<
from the ADC Kernel Programming Guide
Kernel programming is a black art that
should be avoided if at all possible.
Fortunately, kernel programming is
usually unnecessary. You can write
most software entirely in user space.
Even most device drivers (FireWire and
USB, for example) can be written as
applications, rather than as kernel
code. A few low-level drivers must be
resident in the kernel's address
space, however, and this document
might be marginally useful if you are
writing drivers that fall into this
category.
I'm currently setting up vmware Server 2.0 for kernel debugging with gdb ( see this setup guide ) and someone asked me why not use kvm?
So I ask: kvm vs. vmware for kernel debugging / USB driver development
what are the pros and cons of each?
Driver development? are you working on a driver for a particular piece of hardware? if so, then you probably won't be able to use virtualization, because the virtualized instance won't have access to the new hardware.
For this you will need two machines, one running a remote debugger on the other.
*Edit: * Apparently you're developing a driver for a USB Device? this is one area in particular that a VM actually Can help. These days most VM's have the ability to delegate specific USB devices to a guest OS.
That said, this situation doesn't really offer any benefits over the remote debugger option, because you still need a way to inspect the state of the running or crashed OS, and VM's offer very little assistance in this regard. You might be able to replay saved states from just before a crash.
You might be able to get a bit of traction using UML, which would allow you to do local debugging as on a regular user process, which is a little bit less trouble.
Instead of answering the direct question I'll add another option... Depending on if the kernel in question is a Linux kernel, and what part(s) of it you are working on, you might find that UserModeLinux (included in the 2.6.x source, and available as patch sets for 2.4 and 2.2) may trump both of those options.
As it runs the kernel as a userland process under the host kernel it is easier to attach common debugging tools to. I believe it is very commonly used in the early stages of updates/additions to file-system related code. If you are developing/debugging modules that interact directly with hardware it may be much less use to you though.
Reference links: home,
other
I recently started building GNU Mach/HURD and found the combination of QEmu/KVM to work really quite well.. for the following reasons:
QEmu presents quite a clean environment
Networking has alot of options
I can easily mount the filesystem using a raw device file / loopback
Bottom line is, for kernel work I just want the minimum of functionality to boot and see the result. VMWare is much more for usable virtualization rather than down-and-dirty.
There is however no comparison to booting on a real machine with real hardware. The VM environment can seem like a safety blanket somtimes ... because even my toaster would know what a Realtek RTL8139C was.
If it is a "real hardware" device, of course, vmware will not emulate it, so you won't be able to debug the driver under it (nor will any other virtualisation software, unless you extend one to do so).
Device driver debugging can be done to some extent with a real hardware machine with a normal kernel - although there are obviously things you can't do - like set breakpoints.
It is still possible to attach a debugger to the kernel and inspect stuff. Moreover, traditional printf() debugging is quite possible (printk, anyone), and there are various features in the kernel which make debugging easier. It's possible to build the kernel with various debug options to try to detect pointer problems, memory leaks etc.
By default, the kernel even gives a nice-ish stack trace on the log when it encounters an OOPS or BUG condition (obviously this does not necessarily get written anywhere if the system hangs or crashes). Of course a pointer-out-of-range condition happening inside an interrupt is a recipe for disaster, but you could still get a stack trace on the screen immediately before the panic :)