|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dylan16807
2311 days ago
|
|
|
Whichever ones you allow to run in parallel need to have enough memory to run at the same time, but such a situation might happen quite rarely. In other words, that sounds like a system where dynamic memory management is significantly riskier and harder to test than usual! Why not static allocation, but sharing memory between the greedy chunks of code that can't run parallel to each other? (I assume these chunks exist, because otherwise your worst-case analysis for dynamic memory would be exactly the same as for static, and it wouldn't save you anything.) |
|
|
That's what I wanted to say with my comment actually.