Re: [RFT] Re: Policy-based memory allocations (was Re: RFC: 1.97 roadmap)

[Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>]

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 09:35:37PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Actually I don't understand why it was proposed to include it in 1.97
> at all - it changes memory management, bugs in it are likely to be
> critical and benefit is only smaller core. If it was up to me I would
> just postpone it. But it's possible to put it in 1.97 if someone tests
> it enough.

Well, I was expecting that this wouldn't have to change anything on how the
"normal" heap works.  The heap we have now doesn't add low memory to its
arena, so in theory it's possible for another mechanism which reuses the
same functions to use a separate region that doesn't disrupt normal heap
operation in any way.

This solves the problem with bloat in startup.S, which is the reason I
proposed lowmem heap as a feature for 1.97.

But I agree that approaches that change internal heap structures shouldn't
be pushed to 1.97.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."