[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GC (was: lists.texi)
From: |
Richard M. Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: GC (was: lists.texi) |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Jun 2005 12:40:28 -0400 |
Yes I think that would be a good idea. Setting the cons-threshold to
say 1 or 2% of RAM size would yield roughly the numbers which are
being recommended (at 1%, you'd get 640K on a 64MB system, and 5MB on
a 512MB system).
Getting that number is system-dependent of course, but there seems no
reason not to do it on systems where someone wants to write the code
(it can even be done in lisp on [GNU/]linux, by reading /proc/meminfo).
If you'd like to implement this, please go ahead.
This is maybe not a good idea for people who runs emacs on a big server
with a lot a memory and a lot of users (my emacs is running on a server
with 8Gb of RAM -- 66 users are currently using it --, but wasting 80Mo
between each GC doesn't seem very smart)
We could put a cap on the default made this way, of no more
than 10mb, say. Or we could use a function that tapers off.
- Re: GC, (continued)
- Re: GC, Miles Bader, 2005/06/25
- Re: GC, Adrian Aichner, 2005/06/26
- Re: GC, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/06/26
- Re: GC, Juri Linkov, 2005/06/26
- Re: GC, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/06/27
- Re: GC, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/06/26
- Re: GC (was: lists.texi), Miles Bader, 2005/06/25
- Re: GC, Gaƫtan LEURENT, 2005/06/25
- Re: GC, Eli Zaretskii, 2005/06/25
- Re: GC (was: lists.texi), Eli Zaretskii, 2005/06/25
- Re: GC (was: lists.texi),
Richard M. Stallman <=
- Re: GC, Stefan Monnier, 2005/06/28
- Re: GC, Richard M. Stallman, 2005/06/28
Re: lists.texi, Luc Teirlinck, 2005/06/18