[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
▼ Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


How feasible would it be to just always run the same instance of every program, instead of spending all the time allocating memory if you could just keep the existing allocation? Wouldn't it save on syscalls? You're always in the browser or a terminal, or even a file manager window anyway.
>>
File: TLPI-copy-1.png (466 KB, 600x429)
466 KB PNG
poorly written software -> memory leaks. cleaner to just kill the proc.

also yes you'd save on syscalls to set up the proc like fork() but the gains aren't relative to the cost of running those
>>
File: 0391.png (1.31 MB, 1900x1472)
1.31 MB PNG
>>110284522
But is it really a leak if you could just keep using the memory? Why free and alloc it again?
>>
>>110284378
Seems like a security nightmare. Insecure software that you basically never run is in a way actually very secure--because you never run it.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.