What is the difference between vmalloc and kmalloc?

130

I've googled around and found most people advocating the use of kmalloc, as you're guaranteed to get contiguous physical blocks of memory. However, it also seems as though kmalloc can fail if a contiguous physical block that you want can't be found.
What are the advantages of having a contiguous block of memory? Specifically, why would I need to have a contiguous physical block of memory in a system call? Is there any reason I couldn't just use vmalloc?
Finally, if I were to allocate memory during the handling of a system call, should I specify GFP_ATOMIC? Is a system call executed in an atomic context?

GFP_ATOMIC
The allocation is high-priority and does not sleep. This is the flag to use in interrupt handlers, bottom halves and other situations where you cannot sleep.

GFP_KERNEL This is a normal allocation and might block. This is the flag to use in process context code when it is safe to sleep.

c linux-kernel kmalloc vmalloc

Edit Report

1 Answer

Linux Kernel Development by Robert Love (Chapter 12, page 244 in 3rd edition) answers this very clearly.

Yes, physically contiguous memory is not required in many of the cases. Main reason for kmalloc being used more than vmalloc in kernel is performance. The book explains, when big memory chunks are allocated using vmalloc, kernel has to map the physically non-contiguous chunks (pages) into a single contiguous virtual memory region. Since the memory is virtually contiguous and physically non-contiguous, several virtual-to-physical address mappings will have to be added to the page table. And in the worst case, there will be (size of buffer/page size) number of mappings added to the page table.

This also adds pressure on TLB (the cache entries storing recent virtual to physical address mappings) when accessing this buffer. This can lead to thrashing.

answered 2012-07-11T22:37:55.803

What is the difference between vmalloc and kmalloc?

1 Answer

Your Answer