From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <838ttfnmev.fsf@gnu.org> <837f8znk8f.fsf@gnu.org> <83zilvm2ud.fsf@gnu.org> <83r377m0i8.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg36n6v5.fsf@gnu.org> <83funm5j1l.fsf@gnu.org> <83r375520w.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1ip4usj.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477339571 13131 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 20:06:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:06:11 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 22:06:07 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bylVR-00021E-HA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:06:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49603 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bylVT-0000Oy-QG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:06:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33133) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bykJz-0005lN-Oi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bykJu-00057P-Qa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:07 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:38791) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bykJu-00057F-MZ; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id u9OIo1hi004140; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E2BDA6047D; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:50:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83d1ip4usj.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:43:24 +0300") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Level: X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 3 Rules triggered TRK_NCM1=0.2, EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV5837=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <5837> : inlines <5363> : streams <1717468> : uri <2314033> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208744 Archived-At: >> AFAIK, gmalloc+mmap-ralloc is a perfectly acceptable solution for >> Emacs-25.2 with the new glibc, with no known problem. > So you consider this preferable to the 2 alternatives I mentioned in > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2016-10/msg00740.html > ? Not sure. AFAIU, gmalloc-mmap-ralloc suffers from fragmentation, which was the reason why ralloc was written in the first place, so I would tend to shy away from it, but I have not personally seen those problems, so I don't have a strong opinion on this. As for using HYBRID_MALLOC, that would be a better solution I think, but I haven't looked at the corresponding patch, so I don't know how safe it is. Stefan