On 03.03.2008 [15:05:31 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> On 29.02.2008 [09:41:30 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>>> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan w
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 29.02.2008 [09:41:30 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>>> On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrot
On 29.02.2008 [09:41:30 -0600], Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at
David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:48AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erm... I think PRELOAD constructors always go before non-preload
>>> constructors, other than the preload's dependencies, obviously.
> I'd thought so, too,
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:48AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Erm... I think PRELOAD constructors always go before non-preload
> >>> > > constructors, other than the preload's dependencies, obviously.
> >> >
> >> > I'd thought so, too, but if I do
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>>> On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 26.02.2
On 28.02.2008 [20:33:20 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:31:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 27.02.2008 [23:20:35 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 28.02.2008 [13:55:58 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:37PM -0800, Nisha
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:31:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.02.2008 [23:20:35 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 28.02.2008 [13:55:58 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:37PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100]
On 27.02.2008 [23:20:35 -0800], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.02.2008 [13:55:58 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:37PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nisha
On 28.02.2008 [13:55:58 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:37PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Hrm, I guess I hadn't though
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:34:37PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
[snip]
> > > Hrm, I guess I hadn't thought about it that way. I really am curious
> > > about these sem
On 28.02.2008 [13:28:47 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 26.02.2008 [16:16:01 +1100], David
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 06:17:02PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 26.02.2008 [16:16:01 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:05:42PM -0
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:29:03AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:43:08PM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> >> David Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Disable heap shrinking by default unless
On 28.02.2008 [13:00:34 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 26.02.2008 [16:16:01 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:05:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 26.02.2008 [15:33:55 +1100], David
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:11:56AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 26.02.2008 [16:16:01 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:05:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 26.02.2008 [15:33:55 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:48PM -0
David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:43:08PM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
set in the environment.
If m
On 26.02.2008 [16:16:01 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:05:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 26.02.2008 [15:33:55 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > > On 15.02.2008 [11:52:39 +1100], David
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:05:42PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 26.02.2008 [15:33:55 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > On 15.02.2008 [11:52:39 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0
On 26.02.2008 [15:33:55 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 15.02.2008 [11:52:39 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> > > > Disable heap shrinking by default unless
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:23:48PM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 15.02.2008 [11:52:39 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> > > Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
> > > set in the environment.
On 15.02.2008 [11:52:39 +1100], David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> > Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
> > set in the environment.
> >
> > If malloc allocates memory on the heap before libhugetlbfs's
> > se
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 03:43:08PM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> >> Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
> >> set in the environment.
> >>
> >> If malloc allocates memory
David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
>> Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
>> set in the environment.
>>
>> If malloc allocates memory on the heap before libhugetlbfs's
>> setup_morecore is called, then when mall
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:48:42AM -0600, Andrew Hastings wrote:
> Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
> set in the environment.
>
> If malloc allocates memory on the heap before libhugetlbfs's
> setup_morecore is called, then when malloc calls hugetlbfs_morecor
Disable heap shrinking by default unless HUGETLB_MORECORE_SHRINK=yes is
set in the environment.
If malloc allocates memory on the heap before libhugetlbfs's
setup_morecore is called, then when malloc calls hugetlbfs_morecore
it will notice a gap between the previous top-of-heap and the memory
allo
26 matches
Mail list logo