FAT-Allocator/docs/EuroSys/Paper/todo.md

General

• Change name (Thinking of using (Fat Address Translation) -> similar to GNU))
• Avoid words which create options
• Use citation with ~/cite{foo}
• Clear distinction on Literature review and contribution done
• Generalise capitalisation
• Avoid several use ex: There are 3 way...
• Instead of "Leverage" -> "use"
• Remove whitespace from figures to be compressed
• Uniform font sizes in figures
• Symmetrical lines on the figure
• TLB with acronym only once for the first instance in the paper

Abstract

• Reduce Abstract to a single paragraph'
• "Mitigate gap, capacity" -> Expand on for instance on how is it measured.
• Huge pages moved to the introduction.
• Robs proposed structure (This paper presents user-space memory allocator. It uses capability-based addressing to .

Introduction

• "It becomes possible" expand more with baseline compressed bounds.
• "This paper makes the following contribution" -. bullet points with marked sections.
• Research questions removed.
• "This implementation" Specify implementation
• Robs recommended Introduction structure (Expansion of the abstract, Name of the existing system, clearly describe limitation, Introduce memory allocator).

2.1 Encoding ranges as bounds

• Repetition "Tracking of memory ranges using information in pointers" -> remove this
• Paraphrase last sentence

2.2 128 bit compressed bounds

• Cites Jemalloc paragraph.
• Last sentence needs rewriting.

2.3 Instrumenting block based allocator

• Needs citation "Which increases overhead and adds complexity"
• Elaborate on "this method"
• "precise" memory management (Elaborate on this and prove which aspects of the other allocator are not precise).

Memory allocator design

• Remove from heading "sample" and ":"
• Remove future work paragraph
• "unmapped" -> unmap
• "Risks of memory leaks with metadata lookups or complex data structures" -> Elaborate on this

Evaluation

• Name of the project keeps the sentence shorter.

• "Such as" -> Definitive and exhaustive.

• TLB misses and walk contextualised better.

• Section reference on evaluation expanded.

• Remove "Providing a solid foundation for meaningful comparisons"

• Decide to use Macro or instead "real world C programs"

• 1st section Evaluation remove "We observed...."

• Experiment section typo heading

• Fix Latex benchmarks structure

• Change from "Diagram" to "Figure"

• Result para 2 -> too wordy

• "aimed" first use of past tense (Recommendation: avoid)

• Last paragraph (More substance)

• Experiment results systematically explained based on benchmarks as bullet points.

• Rewrite usability

Related work

• Related work lifted up after introduction based on the reflection of the feedback.

Conclusion

• Rewrite