In a MPI PIC code I am writing, the array size I actually need in storing particles in a processor fluctuates with time, with size changing between [0.5n : 1.5n], where n is an average size.
Presently, I allocate arrays of the largest size, i.e, 1.5*n, in this case, for once in each processor and use them without changing thier size afterward.
I am considering an alternative way: i.e., re-allocating all the arrays each time step with their correct sizes, so that I can save memory. But I worry whether re-allocating arrays is expensive and this overhead will slow the code substantially.
Can this issue be verified only by actually profiling the code, or, there is a simple principle inicating that the allocation operating is cheap enough so that we do not need worry about its overhead?
Someone said:
"ALLOCATE does not imply physical memory allocation. For example, you can ALLOCATE an array up to the size of your virtual memory limit, then use it as a sparse array, using physical memory pages only as the space is addressed."
Is this true in Fortran?
There is no single correct answer to this question. And a complete answer would need to explain how a typical Fortran memory allocator works, AND how typical virtual memory systems work. (That is too broad for a StackOverflow Q&A.)
But here are a couple of salient points.
When you reallocate an array you have the overhead of copying the data in the old array to the new array.
Reallocating an array doesn't necessarily reduce your processes actual memory usage. Memory is requested from the OS in large regions (memory segments) and the Fortran allocator then manages the memory it has been given and responds to the application's allocate and deallocate requests. When an array is deallocated, the memory can't be handed back to the OS because there will most likely be other allocated arrays in the same region.
In fact, repeated allocation and deallocation of variable sized arrays can lead to fragmentation ... which further increases memory usage.
What does this mean for you?
That's not clear. It will depend on exactly what your application's memory usage patterns are. And it will depend on how your Fortran runtime's memory allocator works.
But my gut feeling is that you are probably better off NOT trying to dynamically resize arrays to (just) save memory.
Someone said: "ALLOCATE does not imply physical memory allocation. For example, you can ALLOCATE an array up to the size of your virtual memory limit, then use it as a sparse array, using physical memory pages only as the space is addressed."
That is true, but it is not the complete picture.
You also need to consider what happens when an application's virtual memory usage exceeds the physical memory pages available. In that scenario, when the application tries to access a virtual memory page that is not in physical memory the OS virtual memory system needs to "page" another VM page out of physical RAM and "page" in the VM page that the application wants. This will entail writing the existing page (if it is dirty) to the paging device and then reading in the new one. This is going to take a significant length of time, and it will impact on application performance.
If the ratio of available physical RAM to the application's VM working set is too out of balance, the entire system can go into "virtual memory thrashing" ... which can lead to the machine becoming non-responsive and even crashing.
In short if you don't have enough physical RAM, using virtual memory to implement huge sparse arrays can be disaster prone.
It is worth noting that the compute nodes on a large-scale HPC cluster will often be configured with ZERO backing storage for VM swapping. If an application then attempts to use more RAM than is present on the compute node it will error out. Immediately.
Is this true in Fortran?
Yes. Fortran doesn't have any special magic ...
Fortran is no different than say,C , because Fortran allocate typically does not call any low-level system functions but tends to be implemented using malloc() under the hood.
"Is this true in Fortran?"
The lazy allocation you describe is highly system dependent. It is indeed valid on modern Linux. However, it does not mean that it is a good idea to just allocate several 1 TB arrays and than just using certain sections of them. Even if it works in practice on one computer it may very much fail on a different one or on a different operating system or CPU family.
Re-allocation takes time, but it is the way to go to keep your programs standard conforming and undefined-behaviour free. Reallocating every time step may easily bee too slow. But in your previous answer we have showed you that for continuously growing arrays you typically allocate in a geometric series, e.g. by doubling the size. That means that it will only be re-allocated logarithmically often if it grows linearly.
There may be a concern of exceeding the system memory when allocating to the new size and having two copies at the same size. This is only a concern when your consumption high anyway. C has realloc() (which may not help anyway) but Fortran has nothing similar.
Regarding the title question, not every malloc takes the same time. There are is internal bookkeeping involved and the implementations do differ. Some points are raised at https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/319015/how-efficient-is-malloc-and-how-do-implementations-differ and also to some extent at Minimizing the amount of malloc() calls improves performance?
Related
So I am currently trying to allocate dynamically a large array of elements in C++ (using "new"). Obviously, when "large" becomes too large (>4GB), my program crashes with a "bad_alloc" exception because it can't find such a large chunk of memory available.
I could allocate each element of my array separately and then store the pointers to these elements in a separate array. However, time is critical in my application so I would like to avoid as much cache misses as I can. I could also group some of these elements into blocks but what would be the best size for such a block?
My question is then: what is the best way (timewise) to allocate dynamically a large array of elements such that elements do not have to be stored contiguously but they must be accessible by index (using [])? This array is never going to be resized, no elements is going to be inserted or deleted of it.
I thought I could use std::deque for this purpose, knowing that the elements of an std::deque might or might not be stored contiguously in memory but I read there are concerns about the extra memory this container takes?
Thank you for your help on this!
If your problem is such that you actually run out of memory allocating fairly small blocks (as is done by deque) is not going to help, the overhead of tracking the allocations will only make the situation worse. You need to re-think your implementation such that you can deal with it in blocks that will still fit in memory. For such problems, if using x86 or x64 based hardware I would suggest blocks of at least 2 megabytes (the large page size).
Obviously, when "large" becomes too large (>4GB), my program crashes
with a "bad_alloc" exception because it can't find such a large chunk
of memory available.
You should be using 64-bit CPU and OS at this point, allocating huge contiguous chunk of memory should not be a problem, unless you are actually running out of memory. It is possible that you are building 32-bit program. In this case you won't be able to allocate more than 4 GB. You should build 64-bit application.
If you want something better than plain operator new, then your question is OS-specific. Look at API provided by your OS: on POSIX system you should look for mmap and for VirtualAlloc on Windows.
There are multiple problems with large allocations:
For security reasons OS kernel never gives you pages filled with garbage values, instead all new memory will be zero initialized. This means you don't have to initialize that memory as long as zeroes are exactly what you want.
OS gives you real memory lazily on first access. If you are processing large array, you might waste a lot of time taking page faults. To avoid this you can use MAP_POPULATE on Linux. On Windows you can try PrefetchVirtualMemory (but I am not sure if it can do the job). This should make init allocation slower, but should decrease total time spent in kernel.
Working with large chunks of memory wastes slots in Translation Lookaside Buffer (TLB). Depending on you memory access pattern, this can cause noticeable slowdown. To avoid this you can try using large pages (mmap with MAP_HUGETLB, MAP_HUGE_2MB, MAP_HUGE_1GB on Linux, VirtualAlloc and MEM_LARGE_PAGES). Using large pages is not easy, as they are usually not available by default. They also cannot be swapped out (always "locked in memory"), so using them requires privileges.
If you don't want to use OS-specific functions, the best you can find in C++ is std::calloc. Unlike std::malloc or operator new it returns zero initialized memory so you can probably avoid wasting time initializing that memory. Other than that, there is nothing special about that function. But this is the closest you can get while staying withing standard C++.
There are no standard containers designed to handle large allocations, moreover, all standard container are really really bad at handling those situations.
Some OSes (like Linux) overcommit memory, others (like Windows) do not. Windows might refuse to give you memory if it knows it won't be able to satisfy your request later. To avoid this you might want to increase your page file. Windows needs to reserve that space on disk beforehand, but it does not mean it will use it (start swapping). As actual memory is given to programs lazily, there are might be a lot of memory reserved for applications that will never be actually given to them.
If increasing page file is too inconvenient, you can try creating large file and map it into memory. That file will serve as a "page file" for your memory. See CreateFileMapping and MapViewOfFile.
The answer to this question is extremely application, and platform, dependent. These days if you just need a small integer factor greater than 4GB, you use a 64-bit machine, if possible. Sometimes reducing the size of the element in the array is possible as well. (E.g. using 16-bit fixed-point of half-float instead of 32-bit float.)
Beyond this, you are either looking at sparse arrays or out-of-core techniques. Sparse arrays are used when you are not actually storing elements at all locations in the array. There are many possible implementations and which is best depends on both the distribution of the data and the access pattern of the algorithm. See Eigen for example.
Out-of-core involves explicitly reading and writing parts of the array to/from disk. This used to be fairly common, but people work pretty hard to avoid doing this now. Applications that really require such are often built on top of a database or similar to handle the data management. In scientific computing, one ends up needing to distribute the compute as well as the data storage so there's a lot of complexity around that as well. For important problems the entire design may be driven by having good locality of reference.
Any sparse data structure will have overhead in how much space it takes. This can be fairly low, but it means you have to be careful if you actually have a dense array and are simply looking to avoid memory fragmentation.
If your problem can be broken into smaller pieces that only access part of the array at a time and the main issue is memory fragmentation making it hard to allocate one large block, then breaking the array in to pieces, effectively adding an outer vector of pointers, is a good bet. If you have random access to an array larger than 4 gigabytes and no way to localize the accesses, 64-bit is the way to go.
Depending on what you need the memory for and your speed concerns, and if you're using Linux, you can always try using mmap and simulate a sort of swap. It might be slower, but you can map very large sizes. See Mmap() an entire large file
Let's suppose we have a method that creates and uses possibly very big vector<foo>s.
The maximum number of elements is known to be maxElems.
Standard practice as of C++11 is to my best knowledge:
vector<foo> fooVec;
fooVec.reserve(maxElems);
//... fill fooVec using emplace_back() / push_back()
But what happens if we have a scenario where the number of elements is going to be significantly less in the majority of calls to our method?
Is there any disadvantage to the conservative reserve call other than the excess allocated memory (which supposably can be freed with shrink_to_fit() if necessary)?
Summary
There is likely to be some downside to using a too-large reserve, but how much is depends both on the size and context of your reserve() as well as your specific allocator, operating system and their configuration.
As you are probably aware, on platforms like Windows and Linux, large allocations are generally not allocating any physical memory or page table entries until it is first accessed, so you might imagine large, unused allocations to be "free". Sometimes this is called "reserving" memory without "committing" it, and I'll use those terms here.
Here are some reasons this might not be as free as you'd imagine:
Page Granularity
The lazy commit described above only happens at a page granularity. If you are using (typical) 4096 byte pages, it means that if you usually reserve 4,000 bytes for a vector that will usually contains elements taking up 100 bytes, the lazy commit buys you nothing! At least the whole page of 4096 bytes has to be committed and you don't save physical memory. So it isn't just the ratio between the expected and reserved size that matters, but the absolute size of the reserved size that determines how much waste you'll see.
Keep in mind that many systems are now using "huge pages" transparently, so in some cases the granularity will be on the order of 2 MB or more. In that case you need allocations on the order of 10s or 100s of MB to really take advantage of the lazy allocation strategy.
Worse Allocation Performance
Memory allocators for C++ generally try to allocate large chunks of memory (e.g., via sbrk or mmap on Unix-like platforms) and then efficiently carve that up into the small chunks the application is requesting. Getting these large chunks of memory via say a system call like mmap may be several orders of magnitude slower than the fast path allocation within the allocator which is often only a dozen instructions or so. When you ask for large chunks that you mostly won't use, you defeat that optimization and you'll often be going down the slow path.
As a concrete example, let's say your allocator asks mmap for chunks of 128 KB which it carves up to satisfy allocations. You are allocating about 2K of stuff in a typical vector, but reserve 64K. You'll now pay a mmap call for every other reserve call, but if you just asked for the 2K you ultimately needed, you'd have about 32 times fewer mmap calls.
Dependence on Overcommit Handling
When you ask for a lot of memory and don't use it, you can get into the situation where you've asked for more memory than your system supports (e.g., more than your RAM + swap). Whether this is even allowed depends on your OS and how it is configured, and no matter what you are up for some interesting behavior if you subsequently commit more memory simply by writing it. I means that arbitrary processes may be killed, or you might get unexpected errors on any memory write. What works on one system may fail on another due to different overcommit tunables.
Finally, it makes managing your process a bit harder since the "VM size" metric as reported by monitoring tools won't have much relationship to what your process may ultimately commit.
Worse Locality
Allocating more memory than you need makes it likely that your working set will be more sparsely spread out in the virtual address space. The overall effect is a reduction in locality of reference. For very small allocations (e.g., a few dozen bytes) this may reduce the within-same-cache-line locality, but for larger sizes the main effect is likely to be to spread your data onto more physical pages, increasing TLB pressure. The exact thresholds will depend a lot on details like whether hugepages are enabled.
What you cite as standard C++11 practice is hardly standard, and probably not even good practice.
These days I'd be inclined to discourage the use of reserve, and let your platform (i.e. the C++ standard library optimised to your platform) deal with the reallocation as it sees fit.
That said, calling reserve with an excessive amount may well also effectively be benign due to modern operating systems only giving you the memory if you actually use it (Linux is particularly good at that). But relying on this could cause you trouble if you port to a different operating system, whereas simply omitting reserve is less likely to.
You have 2 options:
You don't call reserve and let the default implementation of the vector figure out the size, which uses exponential growth.
Or
You call reserve(maxElems) and shrink_to_fit() afterwards.
The first option is less likely to give you a std::bad_alloc (even though modern OS's probably will never throw this if you don't touch the last block of the reserved memory)
The second option is less likely to invoke multiple calls to reserve, the first option will most likely have 2 calls : the reserve and the shrink_to_fit() (which might be a no-op depending on the implementation since it's non-binding) while option 2 might have significant more. Less calls = better performance.
If you are on linux reserve will call malloc which only allocates virtual memory, but not physical. Physical memory will be used when you actually insert elements to a vector. That's why you can considerably overestimate reserve size.
If you can estimate maximum vector size you can reserve it just once on start to avoid reallocations and no physical memory will be wasted.
But what happens if we have a scenario where the number of elements is going to be significantly less in the majority of calls to our method?
The allocated memory simply remains unused.
Is there a downside to a significant overestimation in a reserve()?
Yes, at least a potential downside: The memory that was allocated for the vector can not be used for other objects.
This is especially problematic in embedded systems that do not usually have virtual memory, and little physical memory to spare.
Concerning programs running inside an operating system, if the operating system does not "over commit" the memory, then this can still easily cause the virtual memory allocation of the program to reach the limit given to the process.
Even in over committing system, particularly gratuitous overestimation can in theory result in exhaustion of virtual address space. But you need pretty big numbers to achieve that on 64 bit architectures.
Is there any disadvantage to the conservative reserve call other than the excess allocated memory (which supposably can be be freed with shrink_to_fit() if necessary)?
Well, this is slower than initially allocating exactly correct amount of memory, but the difference might be marginal.
Short background:
I'm developing a system that should run for months and using dynamic allocations.
The question:
I've heard that memory fragmentation slows down new and malloc operators because they need to "find" a place in one of the "holes" I've left in the memory instead of simply "going forward" in the heap.
I've read the following question:
What is memory fragmentation?
But none of the answers mentioned anything regarding performance, only failure allocating large memory chunks.
So does memory fragmentation make new take more time to allocate memory?
If yes, by how much? How do I know if new is having a "Hard time" finding memory on the heap ?
I've tried to find what are the data structures/algorithms GCC uses to find a "hole" in the memory to allocate inside. But couldn't find any descent explanation.
Memory allocation is platform specific, depending on the platform.
I would say "Yes, new takes time to allocate memory. How much time depends on many factors, such as algorithm, level of fragmentation, processor speed, optimizations, etc.
The best answer for how much time is taken, is to profile and measure. Write a simple program that fragments the memory, then measure the time for allocating memory.
There is no direct method for a program to find out the difficulty of finding available memory locations. You may be able to read a clock, allocate memory, then read again. Another idea is to set a timer.
Note: in many embedded systems, dynamic memory allocation is frowned upon. In critical systems, fragmentation can be the enemy. So fixed sized arrays are used. Fixed sized memory allocations (at compile time) remove fragmentation as an defect issue.
Edit 1: The Search
Usually, memory allocation requires a call to a function. The impact of the this is that the processor may have to reload its instruction cache or pipeline, consuming extra processing time. There also may be extra instruction for passing parameters such as the minimal size. Local variables and allocations at compile time usually don't need a function call for allocation.
Unless the allocation algorithm is linear (think array access), it will require steps to find an available slot. Some memory management algorithms use different strategies based on the requested size. For example, some memory managers may have separate pools for sizes of 64-bits or smaller.
If you think of a memory manager as having a linked list of blocks, the manager will need to find the first block greater than or equal in size to the request. If the block is larger than the requested size, it may be split and the left over memory is then created into a new block and added to the list.
There is no standard algorithm for memory management. They differ based on the needs of the system. Memory managers for platforms with restricted (small) sizes of memory will be different than those that have large amounts of memory. Memory allocation for critical systems may be different than those for non-critical systems. The C++ standard does not mandate the behavior of a memory manager, only some requirements. For example, the memory manager is allowed to allocate from a hard drive, or a network device.
The significance of the impact depends on the memory allocation algorithm. The best path is to measure the performance on your target platform.
Suppose I have a memory pool object with a constructor that takes a pointer to a large chunk of memory ptr and size N. If I do many random allocations and deallocations of various sizes I can get the memory in such a state that I cannot allocate an M byte object contiguously in memory even though there may be a lot free! At the same time, I can't compact the memory because that would cause a dangling pointer on the consumers. How does one resolve fragmentation in this case?
I wanted to add my 2 cents only because no one else pointed out that from your description it sounds like you are implementing a standard heap allocator (i.e what all of us already use every time when we call malloc() or operator new).
A heap is exactly such an object, that goes to virtual memory manager and asks for large chunk of memory (what you call "a pool"). Then it has all kinds of different algorithms for dealing with most efficient way of allocating various size chunks and freeing them. Furthermore, many people have modified and optimized these algorithms over the years. For long time Windows came with an option called low-fragmentation heap (LFH) which you used to have to enable manually. Starting with Vista LFH is used for all heaps by default.
Heaps are not perfect and they can definitely bog down performance when not used properly. Since OS vendors can't possibly anticipate every scenario in which you will use a heap, their heap managers have to be optimized for the "average" use. But if you have a requirement which is similar to the requirements for a regular heap (i.e. many objects, different size....) you should consider just using a heap and not reinventing it because chances are your implementation will be inferior to what OS already provides for you.
With memory allocation, the only time you can gain performance by not simply using the heap is by giving up some other aspect (allocation overhead, allocation lifetime....) which is not important to your specific application.
For example, in our application we had a requirement for many allocations of less than 1KB but these allocations were used only for very short periods of time (milliseconds). To optimize the app, I used Boost Pool library but extended it so that my "allocator" actually contained a collection of boost pool objects, each responsible for allocating one specific size from 16 bytes up to 1024 (in steps of 4). This provided almost free (O(1) complexity) allocation/free of these objects but the catch is that a) memory usage is always large and never goes down even if we don't have a single object allocated, b) Boost Pool never frees the memory it uses (at least in the mode we are using it in) so we only use this for objects which don't stick around very long.
So which aspect(s) of normal memory allocation are you willing to give up in your app?
Depending on the system there are a couple of ways to do it.
Try to avoid fragmentation in the first place, if you allocate blocks in powers of 2 you have less a chance of causing this kind of fragmentation. There are a couple of other ways around it but if you ever reach this state then you just OOM at that point because there are no delicate ways of handling it other than killing the process that asked for memory, blocking until you can allocate memory, or returning NULL as your allocation area.
Another way is to pass pointers to pointers of your data(ex: int **). Then you can rearrange memory beneath the program (thread safe I hope) and compact the allocations so that you can allocate new blocks and still keep the data from old blocks (once the system gets to this state though that becomes a heavy overhead but should seldom be done).
There are also ways of "binning" memory so that you have contiguous pages for instance dedicate 1 page only to allocations of 512 and less, another for 1024 and less, etc... This makes it easier to make decisions about which bin to use and in the worst case you split from the next highest bin or merge from a lower bin which reduces the chance of fragmenting across multiple pages.
Implementing object pools for the objects that you frequently allocate will drive fragmentation down considerably without the need to change your memory allocator.
It would be helpful to know more exactly what you are actually trying to do, because there are many ways to deal with this.
But, the first question is: is this actually happening, or is it a theoretical concern?
One thing to keep in mind is you normally have a lot more virtual memory address space available than physical memory, so even when physical memory is fragmented, there is still plenty of contiguous virtual memory. (Of course, the physical memory is discontiguous underneath but your code doesn't see that.)
I think there is sometimes unwarranted fear of memory fragmentation, and as a result people write a custom memory allocator (or worse, they concoct a scheme with handles and moveable memory and compaction). I think these are rarely needed in practice, and it can sometimes improve performance to throw this out and go back to using malloc.
write the pool to operate as a list of allocations, you can then extended and destroyed as needed. this can reduce fragmentation.
and/or implement allocation transfer (or move) support so you can compact active allocations. the object/holder may need to assist you, since the pool may not necessarily know how to transfer types itself. if the pool is used with a collection type, then it is far easier to accomplish compacting/transfers.
I need some clarifications for the concept & implementation on memory pool.
By memory pool on wiki, it says that
also called fixed-size-blocks allocation, ... ,
as those implementations suffer from fragmentation because of variable
block sizes, it can be impossible to use them in a real time system
due to performance.
How "variable block size causes fragmentation" happens? How fixed sized allocation can solve this? This wiki description sounds a bit misleading to me. I think fragmentation is not avoided by fixed sized allocation or caused by variable size. In memory pool context, fragmentation is avoided by specific designed memory allocators for specific application, or reduced by restrictly using an intended block of memory.
Also by several implementation samples, e.g., Code Sample 1 and Code Sample 2, it seems to me, to use memory pool, the developer has to know the data type very well, then cut, split, or organize the data into the linked memory chunks (if data is close to linked list) or hierarchical linked chunks (if data is more hierarchical organized, like files). Besides, it seems the developer has to predict in prior how much memory he needs.
Well, I could imagine this works well for an array of primitive data. What about C++ non-primitive data classes, in which the memory model is not that evident? Even for primitive data, should the developer consider the data type alignment?
Is there good memory pool library for C and C++?
Thanks for any comments!
Variable block size indeed causes fragmentation. Look at the picture that I am attaching:
The image (from here) shows a situation in which A, B, and C allocates chunks of memory, variable sized chunks.
At some point, B frees all its chunks of memory, and suddenly you have fragmentation. E.g., if C needed to allocate a large chunk of memory, that still would fit into available memory, it could not do because available memory is split in two blocks.
Now, if you think about the case where each chunk of memory would be of the same size, this situation would clearly not arise.
Memory pools, of course, have their own drawbacks, as you yourself point out. So you should not think that a memory pool is a magical wand. It has a cost and it makes sense to pay it under specific circumstances (i.e., embedded system with limited memory, real time constraints and so on).
As to which memory pool is good in C++, I would say that it depends. I have used one under VxWorks that was provided by the OS; in a sense, a good memory pool is effective when it is tightly integrated with the OS. Actually each RTOS offers an implementation of memory pools, I guess.
If you are looking for a generic memory pool implementation, look at this.
EDIT:
From you last comment, it seems to me that possibly you are thinking of memory pools as "the" solution to the problem of fragmentation. Unfortunately, this is not the case. If you want, fragmentation is the manifestation of entropy at the memory level, i.e., it is inevitable. On the other hand, memory pools are a way to manage memory in such a way as to effectively reduce the impact of fragmentation (as I said, and as wikipedia mentioned, mostly on specific systems like real time systems). This comes to a cost, since a memory pool can be less efficient than a "normal" memory allocation technique in that you have a minimum block size. In other words, the entropy reappears under disguise.
Furthermore, that are many parameters that affect the efficiency of a memory pool system, like block size, block allocation policy, or whether you have just one memory pool or you have several memory pools with different block sizes, different lifetimes or different policies.
Memory management is really a complex matter and memory pools are just a technique that, like any other, improves things in comparison to other techniques and exact a cost of its own.
In a scenario where you always allocate fixed-size blocks, you either have enough space for one more block, or you don't. If you have, the block fits in the available space, because all free or used spaces are of the same size. Fragmentation is not a problem.
In a scenario with variable-size blocks, you can end up with multiple separate free blocks with varying sizes. A request for a block of a size that is less than the total memory that is free may be impossible to be satisfied, because there isn't one contiguous block big enough for it. For example, imagine you end up with two separate free blocks of 2KB, and need to satisfy a request for 3KB. Neither of these blocks will be enough to provide for that, even though there is enough memory available.
Both fix-size and variable size memory pools will feature fragmentation, i.e. there will be some free memory chunks between used ones.
For variable size, this might cause problems, since there might not be a free chunk that is big enough for a certain requested size.
For fixed-size pools, on the other hand, this is not a problem, since only portions of the pre-defined size can be requested. If there is free space, it is guaranteed to be large enough for (a multiple of) one portion.
If you do a hard real time system, you might need to know in advance that you can allocate memory within the maximum time allowed. That can be "solved" with fixed size memory pools.
I once worked on a military system, where we had to calculate the maximum possible number of memory blocks of each size that the system could ever possibly use. Then those numbers were added to a grand total, and the system was configured with that amount of memory.
Crazily expensive, but worked for the defence.
When you have several fixed size pools, you can get a secondary fragmentation where your pool is out of blocks even though there is plenty of space in some other pool. How do you share that?
With a memory pool, operations might work like this:
Store a global variable that is a list of available objects (initially empty).
To get a new object, try to return one from the global list of available. If there isn't one, then call operator new to allocate a new object on the heap. Allocation is extremely fast which is important for some applications that might currently be spending a lot of CPU time on memory allocations.
To free an object, simply add it to the global list of available objects. You might place a cap on the number of items allowed in the global list; if the cap is reached then the object would be freed instead of returned to the list. The cap prevents the appearance of a massive memory leak.
Note that this is always done for a single data type of the same size; it doesn't work for larger ones and then you probably need to use the heap as usual.
It's very easy to implement; we use this strategy in our application. This causes a bunch of memory allocations at the beginning of the program, but no more memory freeing/allocating occurs which incurs significant overhead.