On Sat, Dec 30, 2023 at 10:44:52PM +0000, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > Note: I am NOT proposing any substantive changes to the implementation > of the allocator -- I'm just proposing that we go back to the old > _interface_, using the new pool-cache-based _implementation_, and to > add lightweight per-CPU, per-tag usage counting to the malloc and free > paths.
Can we just add tags to kmem(9)? At this point that seems like a path of lesser resistance, and also it avoids having a standard function name with a nonstandard interface. (Also, let's make the tags be typed as pointers instead of an enum) -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org