Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Can anyone tell me how the method described in this patent differs from standard binary buddy allocation as described by Knuth in 1965? The claims for doubly-linked free lists have obvious prior art (see both Knuth and James L. Peterson, Theodore A. Norman. Buddy Systems. Communications of the ACM, Volume 20 Number 6, June 1977.) The "headers aligned with block start addresses" is likewise anticipated by those two citations as well as every implementation of binary allocation known to me (among those that store headers in blocks). The treatment of non-power-of-two block sizes is likewise anticipated by Knuth, Peterson and many others.

Any comments welcome.

share|improve this question
Weirdly, the patent also seems to be grasping at distributed shared memory: "In an alternative exemplary embodiment ... different machines in a LAN are referred to by their IP address, the IP address information of the machine having the next free memory block of the same size would be incorporated into the memory block header destination information of the block being used." –  Kaz Jul 19 '14 at 0:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.