Am 17.04.2015 um 17:02 schrieb Hajime Tazaki: > > Hi Christoph, Richard, > > At Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:44:35 +0200, > Richard Weinberger wrote: >> >> Am 17.04.2015 um 14:17 schrieb Christoph Lameter: >>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2015, Hajime Tazaki wrote: >>> >>>> add header includion for CONFIG_LIB to wrap kmalloc and co. This will >>>> bring malloc(3) based allocator used by arch/lib. >>> >>> Maybe add another allocator insteadl? SLLB which implements memory >>> management using malloc()? >> >> Yeah, that's a good idea. > > first, my bad, I should be more precise on the commit message. > > the patch with 04/11 patch is used _not_ only malloc(3) but > also any allocator registered by our entry API, lib_init(). > > for NUSE case, we use malloc(3) but for DCE (ns-3) case, we > use our own allocator, which manages the (virtual) process > running on network simulator. > > if these externally configurable memory allocator are point > of interest in Linux kernel, maybe adding another allocator > into mm/ is interesting but I'm not sure. what do you think ? This is the idea behind SLLB. > btw, what does stand for SLLB ? (just curious) SLUB is the unqueued SLAB and SLLB is the library SLAB. :D >> Hajime, another question, do you really want a malloc/free backend? >> I'm not a mm expert, but does malloc() behave exactly as the kernel >> counter parts? > > as stated above, A1) yes, we need our own allocator, and A2) > yes as NUSE proofed, it behaves fine. Okay. >> In UML we allocate a big file on the host side, mmap() it and give this mapping >> to the kernel as physical memory such that any kernel allocator can work with it. > > libos doesn't virtualize a physical memory but provide > allocator functions returning memory block on a request > instead. Makes sense. I thought maybe it can help you reducing the code footprint. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
