On 23 December 2011 14:04, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:17:29AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> Hi Antony, >> >> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:03:46PM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: >> > This patch series adds the tlsf memory allocator to barebox. >> > >> > TLSF: Two Level Segregated Fit memory allocator implementation. >> > Written by Matthew Conte (matt@xxxxxxxxxxx). >> > Public Domain, no restrictions. >> > >> > [RFC PATCH 1/3] import TLSF 2.0 >> > [RFC PATCH 2/3] adapt tlsf for barebox >> > [RFC PATCH 3/3] add tlsf-based malloc implementation >> >> The tlsf code looks really nice. Not that I even tried to understand it, >> but it looks like one *could* understand the code when he has to (unlike >> the dlmalloc code). It is also smaller in binary space and it has the >> great advantage of having memory pools. Memory pools can be useful to >> seperate the general malloc space from the ramfs malloc space, so that >> a full ramfs does not crash barebox. It could also be used to implement >> dma_alloc_coherent(). >> >> Unfortunately there are two downsides. As the author already says on the >> webpage it's slightly slower than dlmalloc. That's ok as long we do not >> store big files in ramfs. The second one is that it needs a >> memset(pool, 0, size) on initialization. Without it I was not able to >> test your patches as barebox crashes before even the console was >> initialized. > > This issue goes down to a bug in the console drivers. The most console > drivers use xmalloc instead of xzalloc which caused unitialized flags. > Somehow the tlsf allocater triggered this. > > So I'm going to merge this series. Thank you, Sascha! -- Best regards, Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
