George writes:
>>>write_to_output:987 requested 12288 bytes, received 32384. (***)
>>
>>This is a good example of why the buffer-selection policy needs more
>>work, though - maybe using best fit instead of first fit. Of course,
>
>At this point, I had two 8,192 byte buffers. Do_where took the first, and
>perform_immort_where took the second. That left none free for
>print_object_location and I didn't have a dedicated 12288 byte buffer at
>the time.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how the patch works... for some reason, I
thought it always rounded the request up to the next highest power of
2. I figured the reason a 12288 byte request was filled by 32K
(instead of 16K) was because a 32K buffer already existed in the
buffer pool and was the first one that aquire_buffer() found that was
>= 12288.
>A lot of functions request odd sizes like 200, 100, 32384, 12880,
> 300, etc.
Same as above - I thought you were rounding up?
-J
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST