For the system that allocates just once at startup, I can&#x27;t think of any noticeable change of performance even if allocator is 20 times slower. But, it should be memory-efficient, since RAM is really expensive on those devices, isn&#x27;t it?<p>Standard allocators that I&#x27;m familiar with use minimum 8 bytes overhead per allocation. Umm_malloc uses 4 bytes overhead: twice less. If we have 200 allocations, it&#x27;s 800 wasted bytes already.<p>Plus, it uses &quot;best-fit&quot; algorithm, so that the resulting fragmentation is far less than with the &quot;first-fit&quot;, which is used in standard allocators. (if one really wants to, she can use &quot;first-fit&quot; on umm_malloc, too)