Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964948AbVKGVOD (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:14:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964989AbVKGVOA (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:14:00 -0500 Received: from fmr21.intel.com ([143.183.121.13]:46217 "EHLO scsfmr001.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964948AbVKGVNx (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:13:53 -0500 Subject: RE: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 From: Rohit Seth To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Andy Nelson , agl@us.ibm.com, ak@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, arjanv@infradead.org, gmaxwell@gmail.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, kravetz@us.ibm.com, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, torvalds@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <93700000.1131397118@flay> References: <20051107205532.CF888185988@thermo.lanl.gov> <93700000.1131397118@flay> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:20:15 -0800 Message-Id: <1131398415.18176.50.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2005 21:13:09.0276 (UTC) FILETIME=[0DBF7DC0:01C5E3E0] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1480 Lines: 32 On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 12:58 -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> Isn't it true that most of the times we'll need to be worrying about > >> run-time allocation of memory (using malloc or such) as compared to > >> static. > > > > Perhaps for C. Not neccessarily true for Fortran. I don't know > > anything about how memory allocations proceed there, but there > > are no `malloc' calls (at least with that spelling) in the language > > itself, and I don't know what it does for either static or dynamic > > allocations under the hood. It could be malloc like or whatever > > else. In the language itself, there are language features for > > allocating and deallocating memory and I've seen code that > > uses them, but haven't played with it myself, since my codes > > need pretty much all the various pieces memory all the time, > > and so are simply statically defined. > > Doesn't fortran shove everything in BSS to make some truly monsterous > segment? > hmmm....that would be strange. So, if an app is using TB of data, then a TB space on disk ...then read in at the load time (or may be some optimization in the RTLD knows that this is BSS and does not need to get loaded but then a TB of disk space is a waster). -rohit - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/