Great report Michael, thanks! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Michael André Pearce <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Benoit, > > Though i should explain why i dont think issue 9 can be closed yet. > > Conceived reason why it still is needed in my mind. > > So buffer space is as such after loading it with some data > Pointer Size State > 1 1m full > 2 2m full > 3 1m full > 4 2m full > 5 1m full > 6 2m full > 7 1m full > > I then free, pointers, 1,3,5 and 7. > Pointer Size State > 1 1m free > 2 2m full > 3 1m free > 4 2m full > 5 1m free > 6 2m full > 7 1m free > > I then want to put 2m in the cache. I cant but there is 4m actually avail, > needs defrag. > > So atm im -1 for closing this story, i think the merging memory is a great > idea, as it gives a quick win, without a more expensive defrag, but still > think a defrag routine or algo is needed for the above. > > > > > > > On 2 Mar 2012, at 07:22, Michael André Pearce wrote: > >> I think you may want some defragmentation still, especially if the buffers a >> fair % full and the free pointers are spread, would mean that if any larger >> object that the free pointers arent large enough for, but in total could >> hold, without defrag would mean wouldn't be able to store. >> >> >> On 2 Mar 2012, at 07:15, Benoit Perroud wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Now with DIRECTMEMORY-40 done and a new slab's style allocator, I >>> wonder if DIRECTMEMORY-9 is still relevant or if it could also be >>> closed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Benoit. >> >
