From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Dec 15 11:05:58 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA11424
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:05:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA11414
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:05:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.v-site.net (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA04166; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:03:09 -0800
Message-Id: <199512151903.LAA04166@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: rah.star-gate.com: Host localhost.v-site.net didn't use HELO protocol
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch),
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers)
Subject: Re: growing X server processes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:33:34 +0100."
             <6913.819027214@critter.tfs.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:03:07 -0800
From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> Poul-Henning Kamp said:
 > > Now, what will be interesting to find out is, why does the XFree86 team 
 > > need to write their malloc?
 > for the same reason(s) FreeBSD did.

May I ask what are those reasons?

Also, does the malloc return memory back to the system when it can?

 > 
 > > >From my experience on X , is kind of hard to conceive that the X server /
     cli
 > ent
 > > behave that much different than any large complex system. This of course
 > > is a generalization.
 > The point is exactly that they have a specific case to optimize against.

I guess that it should be interesting to find out exactly what is the
case or the profile that Kaleb mentioned in another posting.

	Amancio