more review
This commit is contained in:
@ -63,11 +63,16 @@ frame_allocator :: proc() -> Allocator {
|
||||
return result
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO(Ed): Rethink usage of transient arena
|
||||
// We can have it so that all usage of transients are chained 64 mb arenas. The users can clear the scratch and make a free-list on the parent varena.
|
||||
// Anything over 64 mb or the chaining threshold should really have dedicated memory.
|
||||
transient_allocator :: proc() -> Allocator {
|
||||
result := varena_allocator( Memory_App.transient )
|
||||
return result
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO(Ed): This needs to be reviewed as we technically can keep the whole file in buffer,
|
||||
// but are we better off with a storage virtual mapping on-demand requested from the host by the client?
|
||||
files_buffer_allocator :: proc() -> Allocator {
|
||||
result := varena_allocator( Memory_App.files_buffer )
|
||||
return result
|
||||
@ -84,6 +89,9 @@ frame_slab_allocator :: proc() -> Allocator {
|
||||
return result
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
// TODO(Ed): Rethink usage of transient arena, slab may still be useful but we need to think of the heursitic when this will be actively used
|
||||
// String generation should use a chained arena, they should never exceed 64 mb or the max threshold (correct?)
|
||||
// Dynamic arrays that last for a while maybe but are temp for complex workloads? Dynamic hashtables using arrays/arenas?
|
||||
transient_slab_allocator :: proc() -> Allocator {
|
||||
result := slab_allocator( get_state().transient_slab )
|
||||
return result
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user