[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question

To: MiNT mailing list <mint@fishpool.com>
Subject: Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
From: "Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 03:45:31 +0200
In-reply-to: <19990425141437.A14837@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de>; from Thomas Binder on Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 02:14:37PM +0200
Mail-followup-to: MiNT mailing list <mint@fishpool.com>
References: <19990424230014Z49677-4836+1049@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> <19990425042709.B420@zowee.rz.uni-sb.de> <19990425141437.A14837@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de>
Sender: owner-mint@fishpool.com

On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 02:14:37PM +0200, Thomas Binder wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 04:27:10AM +0200, Guido Flohr wrote:
> > which changes the chunk size to ask the OS for (via Malloc resp. Mxalloc)
> > from 4096 to NEWSIZE.  I'm not familiar with the code, try it out (and
> > please let me know if you find out something interesting).
> 
> Well, as MiNT uses 8K chunks when memory protection is enabled, I don't
> think a default value of 4K is a good idea here, as half of each block
> will remain unused, then. Thus, it should IMO be changed to 8192.

I would actually prefer to change the chunk size of the kernel.  Konrad,
Frank, your opinion?  

Ciao

Guido
-- 
http://stud.uni-sb.de/~gufl0000
mailto:gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
  - From: Thomas Binder <gryf@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de>
- Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
  - From: Frank Naumann <fnaumann@prinz-atm.CS.Uni-Magdeburg.De>

References:
- [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
  - From: joska@nuts.edu (Jo Even Skarstein)
- Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
  - From: "Guido Flohr" <gufl0000@stud.uni-sb.de>
- Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
  - From: Thomas Binder <gryf@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de>

Prev by Date: [MiNT] MiNTLib bug, wait*
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] MiNTLib bug in tzset()
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] MiNTlibs question
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread