[gmpi] Re: Topic 3: Cross platform
- From: Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:03:16 -0500
>(but losses too) if GMPI were to implement its
>own host-wide "RT" memory pool.. generally speaking the tradeoff is that
>implementing it on the host side means slower performance (as the host
>can't know about individual plug-ins' memory requirement schemes) but more
>efficient use of RAM (as you don't have a hundred plugins each holding a
>pool of a few hundred KBs that are probably only a third full).
have you ever read a malloc implementation? :))
the good ones (glibc is not bad, hoard is better) have pools of
power-of-2 sized chunks that are retained for reuse. the system
internally ends up being pretty much exactly what most people propose
to "fix problems with malloc". the only real issues with most
malloc implementations are:
1) they don't preallocate (easily worked around by doing it yourself)
2) they often have inefficient multithreaded implementation details.
3) they are less than optimal if you know that the object size is
fixed (e.g. pools holding blocks of a certain size to handle
allocating a specific kind of object)
but yes, i thoroughly support host_malloc(), and would gently push for
mandating its use as much as is reasonably possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
