From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Memory again Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:48:23 +0200 Message-ID: <83r50v6itk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4ED0F945.5090805@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1322318916 20771 80.91.229.12 (26 Nov 2011 14:48:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Antipov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 26 15:48:30 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RUJYK-0005CU-4U for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 15:48:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43915 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RUJYJ-0005jU-C6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:48:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36323) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RUJYG-0005jM-H9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:48:25 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RUJYE-0001ek-5I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:48:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:55791) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RUJYD-0001dn-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:48:22 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LV900100VOWR000@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:48:20 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.100.85]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LV900LU5VSJN1Q0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:48:20 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <4ED0F945.5090805@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146260 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:35:49 +0400 > From: Dmitry Antipov > > On 11/26/2011 05:26 PM, Carsten Mattner wrote: > > > After having used 4 erlang-mode buffers and having killed all buffers > > for more than an hour and having run M-x garbage-collect there still > > seems to be unreclaimable space. > > This is an internal heap fragmentation, the most common disadvantage > of simple mark and sweep GC. I don't think buffers are subject to this disadvantage, because they are relocated when needed. Maybe I'm missing something, but please elaborate to show what that is.