From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@gmail.com>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] add tlsf memory allocator
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 09:35:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110920073526.GT31404@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4bVAFdJoDbAUGqiYLvRUJnpdMpHsC1FgZD7vgxeC2zy4EhUQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:24:54PM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> On 19 September 2011 12:56, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > Hi Antony,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 02:03:50AM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote:
> >> got from svn https://www.gii.upv.es/svn/tlsf/trunk@70
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Antony Pavlov <antonynpavlov@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> common/tlsf.c | 1024 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> include/tlsf.h | 39 +++
> >> 2 files changed, 1063 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 common/tlsf.c
> >> create mode 100644 include/tlsf.h
> >
> > What's the advantages of this memory allocator? One thing I see is that
> > this one has support for memory pools which is nice to have. Are there
> > more advantages?
>
> I need some time to answer this question.
>
> I have successfully used tlsf for some time in different projects
> (e.g. I have used tlsf in my own version of PMON2000).
>
> I have found that the barebox has an unusable menu "malloc type",
> there I have found only dmalloc (yes, I know, there is very simple
> malloc too). So I said to myself "Why not to add tlsf to this
> menu?"...
Yes, why not ;)
>
> I have a reason, but, it is not very strict reason of course: tlsf is
> a more recent, and last updated May 2010.
I am generally open to a new malloc implementation. As said, the
possibility to have memory pools is very useful in some cases. dlmalloc
has newer versions though aswell and newer versions also have memory
pools, but...
>
> > How is the binary size compared to dlmalloc?
>
> The binary size is the same.
...Newer versions of dlmalloc are bigger in binary space.
A good selling point for this allocator might be that it's fast (if it
is)
Maybe we can give it a try. First we need a working memalign function of
course.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-20 7:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-14 22:03 Antony Pavlov
2011-09-14 22:03 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] include/tlsf.h: adapt for barebox Antony Pavlov
2011-09-14 22:03 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] add tlsf-based malloc implementation Antony Pavlov
2011-09-19 8:56 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] add tlsf memory allocator Sascha Hauer
[not found] ` <CAA4bVAFdJoDbAUGqiYLvRUJnpdMpHsC1FgZD7vgxeC2zy4EhUQ@mail.gmail.com>
2011-09-20 7:35 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110920073526.GT31404@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=antonynpavlov@gmail.com \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox