incubator-directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
Subject Re: DIRECTMEMORY-9
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:12:11 GMT
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
<michael.andre.pearce@me.com> 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.
>>
>

Mime
View raw message