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 10:04:13 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477319493 25476 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 14:31:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:31:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 16:31:30 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 1bygHO-00049U-4m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:31:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47088 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bygHQ-0006sI-Fr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:31:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50185) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byfsi-0002F2-AO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:05:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byfsd-00050A-BB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:05:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=45145 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byfsc-0004zv-Rv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:05:35 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1byfs9-00048o-1o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:05:05 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 10 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:GdEcYPjD1Y/scPhGqKjUsWPogl4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:208686 Archived-At: >> But that doesn't explain why we'd need to use ralloc in the mean time. > Why would we not want to use ralloc? It made a big improvement for > memory management when I wrote it. But that was before we were able to use mmap for the allocation of buffer memory, which is the main source of fragmentation AFAIK. Also the size of virtual and physical memory was quite different back then, Stefan