Ive just added some sandbox ideas in a zip ive been playing with this week locally to directmemory-9, its not meant for inclusion, especially as its on the old memory buffer, and i agree that if we have something better we should just remove the old. But from it i want to just share some ideas and solutions ive found which could be migrated into the real project, whilst i would look to do this myself, i know i dont have time this weekend or next due to work commitments, as such just wanted to share with the team.
I will pick back up probably in 2 weeks, and look to maybe implement some of the solutions on the new buffers/latest code myself if it hasn't been, and propose inclusion, but if someone else picks up i wont be upset ;-) On 2 Mar 2012, at 08:12, Simone Tripodi wrote: > 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. >>> >>
