Alexei, I had addressed both of your issues in the updated proposal [1]: a. Added portlib pools as the candidate. b. Rephrased abstract a little, with emphasis on unifying. c. "Class-based service" added to improvements plan: service critical customers like exception handlers, etc. d. "Wrapping malloc/free" added to improvements plan.
I want to thank you with the idea (d) - that's the way of moving Classlib native code to UMM. Xiao Feng, Andrey (Yakushev), can you please review? Thanks, Aleksey. [1] http://wiki.apache.org/general/AlekseyShipilev/GSoC2008/harmony-gc-4 > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:01 PM, Alexei Fedotov > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You forgot portlib pools. All this reads in a following way "We have > > > seven memory subsystems, and I want to implement the eighth which > > > would be the best." Ok, I put the same intention into STD_MALLOC three > > > years ago. We attached APR for the same reason.You suggest adding UMM. > > > Amount of systems continues to grow. Contrary, I would suggest having > > > less memory management subsystems on completion of your project. > > > > > > BTW, two important use cases are missed in your proposal. The native > > > memory subsystem should continue serving critical customers such as > > > lazy exception messages or finalizers even when it reported to others > > > that the memory is exhausted. To prevent user's JNI code from > > > exhausting memory we did not find a solution other than substitution > > > of function table in C runtime library with our functions. Redirecting > > > calls to our functions allows us plugging OS-level optimized memory > > > managers and in this case we can continue using conventional malloc > > > and free rather than inventing hymalloc.
