On Tue, 25 Nov 2025 12:14:46 +0000 "mannywang(王永峰)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reduce memory fragmentation caused by dynamic memory allocations > by allowing users to provide custom memory allocator. > > Add new members to struct rte_acl_config to allow passing custom > allocator callbacks to rte_acl_build: > > - running_alloc: allocator callback for run-time internal memory > - running_free: free callback for run-time internal memory > - running_ctx: user-defined context passed to running_alloc/free > > - temp_alloc: allocator callback for temporary memory during ACL build > - temp_reset: reset callback for temporary allocator > - temp_ctx: user-defined context passed to temp_alloc/reset > > These callbacks allow users to provide their own memory pools or > allocators for both persistent runtime structures and temporary > build-time data. > > A typical approach is to pre-allocate a static memory region > for rte_acl_ctx, and to provide a global temporary memory manager > that supports multipleallocations and a single reset during ACL build. > > Since tb_mem_pool handles allocation failures using siglongjmp, > temp_alloc follows the same approach for failure handling. > > Signed-off-by: YongFeng Wang <[email protected]> Rather than introduce an API change which can have impacts in many places; would it be better to fix the underlying rte_malloc implementation. The allocator in rte_malloc() is simplistic compared to glibc and other malloc libraries. The other libraries provide better density, statistics and performance. Improving rte_malloc() would help all use cases not just the special case of busy ACL usage. The other question is does ACL library really need to be storing this data in huge pages at all? If all it needed was an allocator for single process usage, than just using regular malloc would avoid the whole mess.
