From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: u-vpoa@aetey.se
Subject: Re: the memory model being used in elks?
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 20:40:27 +0200
Message-ID: <20150510184027.GN8197@example.net>
References: <20150508201433.GJ8197@example.net>
 <20150509180333.507d7482@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
 <20150509174703.GK8197@example.net>
 <554E48F4.5010406@jodybruchon.com>
 <20150509183836.GL8197@example.net>
 <CAD6VGuanmBim0VXuCXumpp3+aA8TrL4Wibc1rLA=WxbbHFbUtg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD6VGuanmBim0VXuCXumpp3+aA8TrL4Wibc1rLA=WxbbHFbUtg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-8086-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-8086.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Juan Perez-Sanchez <lithoxs@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-8086 <linux-8086@vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:31:38AM -0500, Juan Perez-Sanchez wrote:
> Compile with flags
> 
>  -i -H E000
> 
> Flag H controls the size of BSS.

I see, a minix-like static allocation (I'm guessing this is needed
because ELKS does not yet handle overlapping segments between different
processes so it does not want to allocate a whole segment to each process
per default?).

Yes, indeed, this helped, but I had to both set

 -H0xff00
and
 -DBLON=3584    (reduce the compression block size)

to get rid of "no memory".

The utility still performs better than ELKS compress
but this scaling down should not be needed.

8KB compression block size works under elksemu
(about 9KB extra for the buffers compared to the 3.5KB block),
what causes this difference?

Rl