From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com ([74.125.82.177]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Re3B3-000774-3Y for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:20:41 +0000 Received: by wera10 with SMTP id a10so5176962wer.36 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2011 03:20:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20111223100421.GB27267@pengutronix.de> References: <1323353029-17281-1-git-send-email-antonynpavlov@gmail.com> <20111209091729.GZ27267@pengutronix.de> <20111223100421.GB27267@pengutronix.de> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:20:38 +0300 Message-ID: From: Antony Pavlov List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] add tlsf memory allocator To: Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On 23 December 2011 14:04, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:17:29AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> Hi Antony, >> >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:03:46PM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: >> > This patch series adds the tlsf memory allocator to barebox. >> > >> > TLSF: Two Level Segregated Fit memory allocator implementation. >> > Written by Matthew Conte (matt@baisoku.org). >> > Public Domain, no restrictions. >> > >> > [RFC PATCH 1/3] import TLSF 2.0 >> > [RFC PATCH 2/3] adapt tlsf for barebox >> > [RFC PATCH 3/3] add tlsf-based malloc implementation >> >> The tlsf code looks really nice. Not that I even tried to understand it, >> but it looks like one *could* understand the code when he has to (unlike >> the dlmalloc code). It is also smaller in binary space and it has the >> great advantage of having memory pools. Memory pools can be useful to >> seperate the general malloc space from the ramfs malloc space, so that >> a full ramfs does not crash barebox. It could also be used to implement >> dma_alloc_coherent(). >> >> Unfortunately there are two downsides. As the author already says on the >> webpage it's slightly slower than dlmalloc. That's ok as long we do not >> store big files in ramfs. The second one is that it needs a >> memset(pool, 0, size) on initialization. Without it I was not able to >> test your patches as barebox crashes before even the console was >> initialized. > > This issue goes down to a bug in the console drivers. The most console > drivers use xmalloc instead of xzalloc which caused unitialized flags. > Somehow the tlsf allocater triggered this. > > So I'm going to merge this series. Thank you, Sascha! -- = Best regards, =A0 Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox