RFC : Heap management using TLSF

Tim timcussins at eml.cc
Thu Jul 31 15:59:27 UTC 2008

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 08:25 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I would like to make sure I understand why this algorithm
> is better.  And we definitely want to ensure that we have
> the same type of statistics and error checking information
> available in TLSF.  It would also be great to be able to walk the heap
> and get other information via the RTEMS gdb macros.

Yeah, no problem :)

I'll be honest, I was talked into TLSF when I got back from 2 months of
holiday this year, having missed the previous discussion that took
place, so I basically put my hand up to do the work.

I've had a stab at transplanting TLSF into the tree, and we're using it
on a development branch, and giving it as much exposure as we can - no
problems so far.

The transplant includes stats, 95% complete. No GDB macros as yet

> With any luck, the limited way the heap API is easy enough to just
> replace with another implementation. 
> The only other gotcha in this is that the Classic API Region
> and ITRON API memory pools use the heap so we have to
> be sure we get the published features on those.
> Basically you are looking to replace code that has already
> been overhauled once in the life of RTEMS but we have
> a fair amount of aids and APIs built around it, so we don't
> want to lose any capabilities.

Understood. In a couple of weeks I'll be back on this, and first thing
will be some benchmarks to quantify any performance gains associated
with moving to TLSF.


More information about the users mailing list