RE: [PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool

> > > We debated several approaches for what to do here > > it would be awesome if the list could participate in the discussion even if > only > read-only. A bit of delay in my response here, but I like the suggestion. here is a summary of some approaches I considered: 1) Do not include any

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool

> > The memory pool design makes some tradeoffs. It is not meant to > be completely replace malloc / free as a general purpose > allocator, but rather used in scenarios where the benefit (faster > allocations, lower bookkeeping overhead) is worth the > tradeoffs (not able to free individual

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Jameson Miller wrote: > Changes from V2: > > - Tweak logic of finding available memory block for memory > allocation > > - Only search head block > > - Tweaked handling of large memory allocations. > >

RE: [PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool

google.com; peart...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool > > Jameson Miller <jam...@microsoft.com> writes: > > > Changes from V2: > > > > - Tweak logic of finding available memory block for memory > &g

Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool

Jameson Miller writes: > Changes from V2: > > - Tweak logic of finding available memory block for memory > allocation > > - Only search head block Hmph. Is that because we generally do not free() a lot so once a block is filled, there is not

[PATCH v3 0/7] allocate cache entries from memory pool

Changes from V2: - Tweak logic of finding available memory block for memory allocation - Only search head block - Tweaked handling of large memory allocations. - Large blocks now tracked in same manner as "regular"