incubator-directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pea...@me.com>
Subject Re: DIRECTMEMORY-9
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:58:19 GMT
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.
> 


Mime
View raw message