[#14696] Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>

Why can you not rescue return, break, etc when they are within

21 messages 2008/01/02
[#14699] Re: Inconsistency in rescuability of "return" — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/02

[#14738] Enumerable#zip Needs Love — James Gray <james@...>

The community has been building a Ruby 1.9 compatibility tip list on

15 messages 2008/01/03
[#14755] Re: Enumerable#zip Needs Love — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/01/04

Hello James,

[#14772] Manual Memory Management — Pramukta Kumar <prak@...>

I was thinking it would be nice to be able to free large objects at

36 messages 2008/01/04
[#14788] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/05

I would only like to add that RMgick for example provides free method to

[#14824] Re: Manual Memory Management — MenTaLguY <mental@...> 2008/01/07

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:49:30 +0900, Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@gmail.com> wrote:

[#14825] Re: Manual Memory Management — "Evan Weaver" <evan@...> 2008/01/07

Python supports 'del reference', which decrements the reference

[#14838] Re: Manual Memory Management — Marcin Raczkowski <mailing.mr@...> 2008/01/08

Evan Weaver wrote:

[#14911] Draft of some pages about encoding in Ruby 1.9 — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

24 messages 2008/01/10

[#14976] nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...>

The following just appeared in the ChangeLog

37 messages 2008/01/11
[#14977] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14978] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14979] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Dave Thomas wrote:

[#14993] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/01/11

[#14980] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2008/01/11

[#14981] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/11

Hi,

[#14995] Re: nil encoding as synonym for binary encoding — David Flanagan <david@...> 2008/01/11

Yukihiro Matsumoto writes:

[#15050] how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...>

Core Rubies:

17 messages 2008/01/13
[#15060] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 08:54 AM, Phlip wrote:

[#15062] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Phlip <phlip2005@...> 2008/01/14

Eric Hodel wrote:

[#15073] Re: how to "borrow" the RDoc::RubyParser and HTMLGenerator — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2008/01/14

On Jan 13, 2008, at 20:35 PM, Phlip wrote:

[#15185] Friendlier methods to compare two Time objects — "Jim Cropcho" <jim.cropcho@...>

Hello,

10 messages 2008/01/22

[#15194] Can large scale projects be successful implemented around a dynamic programming language? — Jordi <mumismo@...>

A good article I have found (may have been linked by slashdot, don't know)

8 messages 2008/01/24

[#15248] Symbol#empty? ? — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>

Hi --

24 messages 2008/01/28
[#15250] Re: Symbol#empty? ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/01/28

Hi,

Re: Manual Memory Management

From: Kurt Stephens <ks@...>
Date: 2008-01-05 07:39:38 UTC
List: ruby-core #14790
Gary Wright wrote:
> 
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Pramukta Kumar wrote:
>> the motivation for this was that I found myself in a situation where I
>> had to load up large objects from time to time within a long running
>> process but I only had to use each of them for a short period of
>> time.  the process normally doesn't need very much memory but during
>> those moments it does.
> 
> There is another hurdle to overcome.  While malloc() will
> request extra memory from the operating system as needed, in
> most implementations it will *never* return the favor and
> return unused memory back to the operating system.
> 
> So even if the garbage collector is 100% efficient, you'll
> be left will a chunk of memory that is free (as in can be
> used for new objects) but that the operating system still
> considers to be 'in use'.  The memory won't be returned to
> the OS until the process exits.
> 
> There are system calls that will allow a process to
> return memory to the OS but in general it isn't possible
> because of memory fragmentation.  In-use objects would
> have to be moved around to coalesce free memory into
> full pages to be released back to the OS.
> 

This is especially true if the allocator (malloc()) uses sbrk() rather
than mmap() to request pages.  The problem is worse the larger the
allocation requests from OS are, regardless of sbrk() or mmap().

Depending on allocation patterns, scavenging larger blocks from a free
list when memory pressure is high can sometime prevent fragmenting
bigger OS pages that maybe be allocated for smaller object sizes.

> A long running process could avoid this problem by
> forking off worker processes to deal with periodic tasks
> that require large amounts of memory.
> 
> Gary Wright
> 

Or use a copying-compacting collector; that could always return unused
memory to the OS. :)

Kurt Stephens
http://kurtstephens.com



In This Thread