Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, John Gorman <johngorman2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators
Date: 2017-02-11 01:41:29
Message-ID: 20170211014129.zriop3nw7rbevcqq@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-02-11 02:13:59 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> > > + /* move the whole block to the right place in the freelist */
> > > + dlist_delete(&block->node);
> > > + dlist_push_head(&set->freelist[block->nfree], &block->node);
> >
> > Hm. What if we, instead of the array of doubly linked lists, just kept
> > a single linked list of blocks, and keep that list sorted by number of
> > free chunks? Given that freeing / allocation never changes the number
> > of allocated chunks by more than 1, we'll never have to move an entry
> > far in that list to keep it sorted.
> >
>
> Only assuming that there'll be only few blocks with the same number of free
> chunks. If that's not the case, you'll have to walk many blocks to move the
> block to the right place in the list. The array of lists handles such cases
> way more efficiently, and I think we should keep it.

The proper datastructure would probably be a heap. Right now
binaryheap.h is fixed-size - probably not too hard to change.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Sharma 2017-02-11 01:44:29 Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-02-11 01:39:55 Re: amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking tool)