When 2 caches share the same memory policy, does it mean that they are using the same Page Memory offheap space?
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Sergey Chugunov <sergey.chugu...@gmail.com > wrote: > Dmitriy, > > Correct, cache configuration may contain a name of memory policy to use for > this cache. > If memory policy is not specified, a default one is used. > > Thanks, > Sergey. > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Thanks Sergey! > > > > Just to confirm, the same memory policy could be shared between different > > caches, right? > > > > D. > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Sergey Chugunov < > > sergey.chugu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello Ignite devs, > > > > > > I created new subtask <https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/IGNITE-4758 > > > > > > under IGNITE-3477 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3477> > > with > > > my vision of how *MemoryPolicy* may be implemented. > > > > > > In a nutshell my idea is as follows: instead of having only one > instance > > of > > > *PageMemory* and managing a mapping [cacheId->pageMemory region] I > > suggest > > > introducing separate *PageMemory* instance (and corresponding > *FreeList* > > > and *ReuseList* structures) for each *MemoryPolicy* configuration. > > > This instance will be stored in individual cache contexts instead of > > shared > > > cache context as it is right now. > > > > > > I think this design is a very natural extension of *PageMemory* concept > > and > > > should not introduce any performance degradation as no changes are > > > introduced into *PageMemory* implementation itself. > > > > > > Please share any thoughts or concerns about suggested design in this > > thread > > > or in comments under the subtask > > > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4758>. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sergey. > > > > > >
