On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Yup. I've brought this up to Sander and David before, but this is how > pools woah. no way really? that's not at all how it was in 1.3 or in early 2.0 ... in 2.0 as of uh a year ago say, there was one free list per process, and locks were used to access it. no matter where in the tree of pools you tried an allocation, if it didn't fit into the current block, the allocator would lock and go to the global free block list and pick up the first fit block. none of this going up through a chain of pools or anything, that's insane. > It's a tradeoff (and is purposeful for lots of small allocations), but > until someone can write a better memory allocation algorithm, this is > what we got. 1.3's memory allocation algorithm kick ass, to put it mildly. i've not read the apr-dev archives as to the Why and the Goals of SMS ... -dean
