From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: lazy sweeping. Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:40:10 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15685.14250.901905.318924@meddo.cs.uu.nl> References: <15684.32520.154258.348830@blauw.xs4all.nl> <15685.3950.266394.345360@meddo.cs.uu.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1027947013 6333 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2002 12:50:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:50:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17Z9yS-0001dy-00 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:50:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Z9yn-0006Qj-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:50:29 -0400 Original-Received: from aurora.cs.uu.nl ([131.211.80.20] helo=mail.cs.uu.nl) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Z9op-0005Am-00 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 08:40:11 -0400 Original-Received: from meddo.cs.uu.nl.cs.uu.nl (meddo.cs.uu.nl [131.211.80.91]) by mail.cs.uu.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 048BB1CB253; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:40:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Michael Livshin Original-Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under Emacs 21.2.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:878 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:878 guile@cmm.kakpryg.net writes: > if I remember correctly, Guile has some logic to cope with suddenly > running out of file descriptors: it calls GC in the hope that some > port objects are unreachable. > > I guess now you don't have to nesessarily do a full GC right away, > instead you may want to finish the sweep first and see if that helps, > and only do a new GC if finishing the sweep haven't helped. hmm. so > that's not as fiddly as I thought, and probably works as it is. > > ditto for malloced memory, I guess. Hrm. I'll have to add some more logic then -- we want to be able to completely clean the heap, but not advance the "free mem starts here" pointer. What would be the right behavior: doing a full sweep, or a mark + full sweep? Or maybe just both (first the full sweep, if it doesn't yield enough: the full mark.) Do you know where that function is? I can't seem to find how a new port is added. Oh wait. This goes through scm_must_malloc. Ok. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | hanwen@cs.uu.nl | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/ _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel