> From: Ryan Bloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 February 2002 18:02 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Justin Erenkrantz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:59 AM > > To: Sander Striker > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Free memory over a certain threshold back to the > > system > > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:24:36PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The 'high free' patch. I'm not sure we want this. > > > It may hide pools abuse problems. > > > > Yeah, I agree we don't really want this. If we run out of memory > > with the normal pools, it means that the lifetimes are most likely > > incorrect. > > > > But, perhaps this could be a #define with a debug option? -- justin > > We definitely don't want this IMHO. If the pools are filling up, then > either pools are the incorrect model for your app, or they aren't being > cleared often enough. I would much rather not have this as an option at > all, because that just encourages people to use it. :-) > > Ryan
It is the memory on the freelists that grows without bounds. The patch free()s memory that is added to a freelist when the freelist already holds a certain amount of free memory. This is very usefull when you have peak memory usage as some people pointed out. The pools model is something you are stuck with it if you want to use APR. And it is not always pools abuse which gives you big chunks of mem on the freelist. Although I must admit that I would recommend some serious review of the code which shows this behaviour. Anyhow, I'd like to add a configure option which you can feed the amount of memory you want as a maximum on a freelist, defaulting to infinite. Thoughts? Sander
