At 10:40 AM 3/30/2002 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote: >At 09:09 AM 3/30/2002 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: >>At 1:03 AM -0500 3/30/02, Melvin Smith wrote: >>>Frame stacks now keep their size, no use in freeing the chunks; if we >>>reached a frame depth N once, we will typically reach N many more times. >> >>If someone's feeling ambitious, code to check the number of unused chunks >>may be in order--that way if we have more than N unused chunks we can >>free the excess. (For those cases where the stack gets massively, but >>rarely, blown) > >I almost did this but decided to call it a night. > >I was thinking along the lines of a resource limit similar to the JVM >where we can pass in optimal and maximum stack sizes. We'd >just need a chunk counter in the chunk member and multiply it >times the frames per chunk. For a tuning configurable it would >be nice to modify FRAMES_PER_CHUNK at compile time.
Back to this thread since Dan is hopefully gonna surface :) Any comments from the rest of you on resource limits before I have a hack at it? Dan makes a good point of maybe having an "optimal" value for the stacks, I'd like to at least have a "max" value (which could of course be set to infinity by default) for these resources. -Melvin
