Designing and coding a non-fragmentizing static memory pool_问答_开发者

I have heard the term before and I would like to know how to design and code one.

Should I use 开发者_JAVA百科the STL allocator if available?

How can it be done on devices with no OS?

What are the tradeoffs between using it and using the regular compiler implemented malloc/new?

I would suggest that you should know that you need a non-fragmenting memory allocator before you put much effort into writing your own. The one provided by the std library is usually sufficient.

If you need one, the general idea of reducing fragmentation is to grab large blocks of memory at once and allocate from the pool rather than asking the OS to provide you with heap memory sporadically and at highly varying places within the heap and interspersed with many other objects with varying sizes. Since the author of the specialized memory allocator has more knowledge on the size of the objects allocated from the pool and how those allocations occur, the allocator can use the memory more efficiently than a general purpose allocator such as the one provided by the STL.

You can look at memory allocators such as Hoard which while reducing memory fragmentation, also can increase performance by providing thread specific heaps which reduce contention. This can help your application scale more linearly, especially on multi-core platforms.

More info on multi-threaded allocators can be found here.

Will try to describe what is essentially a memory pool - I'm just typing this off the top of my head, been a while since I've implemented one, if something is obviously stupid, it's just a suggestion! :)

1. To reduce fragmentation, you need to create a memory pool that is specific to the type of object you are allocating in it. Essentially, you then restrict the size of each allocation to the size of the object you are interested in. You could implement a templated class which has a list of dynamically allocated blocks (the reason for the list being that you can grow the amount of space available). Each dynamically allocated block would essentially be an array of T.

You would then have a "free" list, which is a singly linked list, where the head points to the next available block. Allocation is then simply returning the head. You could overlay the linked list in the block itself, i.e. each "block" (which represents the aligned size of T), would essentially be a union of T and a node in the linked list, when allocated, it's T, when freed, a node in the list. !!There are obvious dangers!! Alternatively, you could allocate a separate (and protected block, which adds more overhead) to hold an array of addresses in the block.

Allocating is trivial, iterate through the list of blocks and allocate from first available, freeing is also trivial, the additional check you have to do is the find the block from which this is allocated and then update the head pointer. (note, you'll need to use either placement new or override the operator new/delete in T - there are ways around this, google is your friend)

The "static" I believe implies a singleton memory pool for all objects of type T. The downside is that for each T you have to have a separate memory pool. You could be smart, and have a single object that manages pools of different size (using an array of pointers to pool objects where the index is the size of the object for example).

The whole point of the previous paragraph is to outline exactly how complex this is, and like RC says above, be sure you need it before you do it - as it is likely to introduce more pain than may be necessary!

2. If the STL allocator meets your needs, use it, it's designed by some very smart people who know what they are doing - however it is for the generic case and if you know how your objects are allocated, you could make the above perform faster.

3. You need to be able to allocate memory somehow (hardware support or some sort of HAL - whatever) - else I'm not sure how your program would work?

4. The regular malloc/new does a lot more stuff under the covers (google is your friend, my answer is already an essay!) The simple allocator I describe above isn't re-entrant, of course you could wrap it with a mutex to provide a bit of cover, and even then, I would hazard that the simple allocator would perform orders of magnitude faster than normal malloc/free.

But if you're at this stage of optimization - presumably you've exhausted the possibility of optimizing your algorithms and data structure usage?