Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That algorithm "won't work" ... there is too much searching taking place. > The current pools code is way fast because it doesn't have to search for > blocks in the typical allocation case. > > The pools code is quite sensitive. It is noticable if you add even one more > 'if' statement to the typical-use codepath. > > (the proposed patches don't seem too bad because they really only come into > play at non-typical points: when you need a new block, and when you're > freeing a pool)
Ah, okay, so the "active block" means "try me first no matter what", and the "inactive blocks" are "try us before allocating a new block", and the distinction is made for speed. (Except that even with the patch, we'll only try the first of the inactive blocks.) Hmm. I guess I don't know how the benchmarks look, so I'll shut up now :-).
