Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:43:29 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Slab allocator update Message-ID: <20020303120514.W21325-100000@gateway.posi.net> In-Reply-To: <200203021815.g22IF0e55311@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I think that the overhead and inconvience to store the size of the
> :allocations may be too much for us to deal with.
>
> I have to disagree here. I have a lot of experience converting
> malloc()/free() based systems to other types of memory allocators
> where the 'free' requires a size. It's utterly trivial. The size
> is known trivially in 99% of the cases.
>
As someone who has used one of Matt's other allocators in which free()
requires a size, I have to agree with him. Adding a size parameter to free
offloads the management of the size information from the software to the
programmer. While it may not be ideal for general purpose software, it
makes very good sense when you are looking to optimize software for speed.
Kelly
kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org}
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020303120514.W21325-100000>