On 20 July 2012 22:15, Vojtech Horky <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jiri! >
Hi Vojta, > 2012/7/20 Jiří Zárevúcky <[email protected]>: >> On 20 July 2012 16:55, Jiří Zárevúcky <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 20 July 2012 16:36, Jakub Jermar <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> In your patch, why don't you simply add size and align in area_grow(), >>>> just as you do for the new areas? >>>> >>> >>> I wanted to avoid requesting more pages than necessary, but now that I >>> think about it, it probably doesn't really matter, does it? >>> What I find peculiar though is that growing the area always creates a >>> new free block, even if the previous block is free. >>> Seems to me like a completely unnecessary fragmentation. >> >> There, my final iteration. > I have one comment/question. I have tried the memalign test from the > #395 [1] and it works. But: I have run it in Qemu (ia32 build) and if > the RAM is 33MB it produces quite unexpected output - it is possible > to allocate bigger chunk of aligned memory than of unaligned. I.e., > memalign() succeeds where malloc() fails for the same size. > Is it possible that you used the function as written in the ticket, i.e. memalign(1 << i, 32)? That call has a wrong order of arguments. Alignment should be first. I suspect that would explain the difference. _______________________________________________ HelenOS-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.modry.cz/cgi-bin/listinfo/helenos-devel
