[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:53:40 -0500 (CDT) |
I may be wrong. I got the impression that differences in, for
instance, the C library and even the actual version of, say glibc, did
matter, from, for instance, the following comment from alloc.c, which
seems to say that different versions of glibc waste different amounts
of memory on alignment. But maybe I misunderstood the comment.
/* Padding to leave at the end of a malloc'd block. This is to give
malloc a chance to minimize the amount of memory wasted to alignment.
It should be tuned to the particular malloc library used.
On glibc-2.3.2, malloc never tries to align, so a padding of 0 is best.
posix_memalign on the other hand would ideally prefer a value of 4
because otherwise, there's 1020 bytes wasted between each ablocks.
In Emacs, testing shows that those 1020 can most of the time be
efficiently used by malloc to place other objects, so a value of 0 can
still preferable unless you have a lot of aligned blocks and virtually
nothing else. */
#define BLOCK_PADDING 0
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), (continued)
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Stefan Monnier, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Andreas Schwab, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), David Kastrup, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28