-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
Description
Hi Devs,
I've been doing some deep code diving and I seem to have found a discrepancy between code comments and reality. This difference could hint at a bug or performance degradation, but I doubt it. I thought to ask to get clarification.
In malloc.h, the comments and definition for arena_header, ARENA_PADDING and free_arena_header are:
Lines 41 to 74 in 2ea44cb
| /* | |
| * This structure should be a power of two. This becomes the | |
| * alignment unit. | |
| */ | |
| struct arena_header { | |
| malloc_tag_t tag; | |
| size_t attrs; /* Bits 0..1: Type | |
| 2..3: Heap, | |
| 4..31: MSB of the size */ | |
| struct free_arena_header *next, *prev; | |
| #ifdef DEBUG_MALLOC | |
| unsigned long _pad[3]; | |
| unsigned int magic; | |
| #endif | |
| }; | |
| /* Pad to 2*sizeof(struct arena_header) */ | |
| #define ARENA_PADDING ((2 * sizeof(struct arena_header)) - \ | |
| (sizeof(struct arena_header) + \ | |
| sizeof(struct free_arena_header *) + \ | |
| sizeof(struct free_arena_header *))) | |
| /* | |
| * This structure should be no more than twice the size of the | |
| * previous structure. | |
| */ | |
| struct free_arena_header { | |
| struct arena_header a; | |
| struct free_arena_header *next_free, *prev_free; | |
| size_t _pad[ARENA_PADDING]; | |
| }; | |
In my environment, the size of int and pointer are both 32-bits (x86 32-bits). When compiled with DEBUG_MALLOC undefined; I get
sizeof(arena_header) == 16
sizeof(free_arena_header) == 56
Which disagrees with the comments. The comments do make a lot of sense to ensure good alignment. To make the code agree with the comments (the easier option); the definition of ARENA_PADDING needs to be altered to:
#define ARENA_PADDING (((2 * sizeof(struct arena_header)) - \
(sizeof(struct arena_header) + \
sizeof(struct free_arena_header *) + \
sizeof(struct free_arena_header *))) / sizeof(size_t))This includes a reduction in the size of the padding by the unit size of the padding, i.e sizeof(size_t). Given that this is the memory sub-system, this small change could have a significant impact.
What are your thoughts?
Feedback most welcome,
Brett