[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [lwip-users] Recv en socket TCP

From: Bill Auerbach
Subject: RE: [lwip-users] Recv en socket TCP
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:08:20 -0400

I wouldn’t worry about this too much.  It’s more a point that it can happen, not will happen.  I prefer pools because I can control how much memory is used and am aware of it up front (at the beginning).  And I have a feeling pools are more efficient.




From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Oscar F
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:51 AM
To: Mailing list for lwIP users
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] Recv en socket TCP


Hello, but i don´t understand this, your advice, i don't Know about fragmentation,

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Bill Auerbach <address@hidden> wrote:

>As Kieran already said, it is generally a good idea to first get your
>application running with the standard options and once that works begin
>tweaking it to suit your memory/resource needs. MEM_LIBC_MALLOC saves
>you some code-memory if you already use malloc provided by your
>C-library somewhere else (not in lwIP) because you then do not need the
>lwIP heap implementation. On the other hand, memory usage gets a little
>less predictable as you then share the heap with the rest of the code
>running on your target. Thus, this setting largley depends on your

I thought I'd ask something that just occurred to me: Can lwIP's
implementation of malloc result in fragmentation of lwIP's heap?

If it can, than a system requiring 24/7 operation would be better off using
lwIP pools since they cannot fragment.


lwip-users mailing list


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]