You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: README.md
+1-1Lines changed: 1 addition & 1 deletion
Display the source diff
Display the rich diff
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ So either:
21
21
22
22
## Justification
23
23
24
-
While `async-io` supports a ton of operating systems - _including ESP-IDF for the Espressif MCU chips_ - it does have a non-trivial memory consumption in the hidden thread named `async-io`. Since its hidden `Reactor` object is initialized lazily, it so happens that it is first allocated on-stack, and then it is moved into the static context. This requires the `async-io` thread to have at least 8K stack, which - by MCU standards! - is relatively large if you are memory-constrained.
24
+
While `async-io` supports a ton of operating systems - _including ESP-IDF for the Espressif MCU chips_ - it does have a non-trivial memory consumption in the hidden thread named `async-io`. Since its hidden `Reactor` object is initialized lazily, it so happens that it is first allocated on-stack, and then it is moved into the static context. This requires the `async-io` thread (as well as _any_ thread from where you are polling sockets) to have at least 8K stack, which - by MCU standards! - is relatively large if you are memory-constrained.
25
25
26
26
In contrast, `async-io-mini`:
27
27
- Needs < 3K of stack with ESP-IDF (and that's only because ESP-IDF interrupts are executed on the stack of the interrupted thread, i.e. we need to leave some room for these);
0 commit comments