## 3 Results
### Non-Real-Time Zone Experiment  
For the non-real-time part, we use the total execution time of task processing as the metric, which is also the most intuitive indicator for evaluating memory allocation efficiency. We compare EPmalloc with three widely used and open-source memory allocators, including mimalloc [30], TCMalloc [31], and the default malloc from the Glibc runtime library [32]. Among them, mimalloc is a compact general-purpose allocator developed by Microsoft, TCMalloc is a multithread-optimized allocator custom implemented by Google, and Glibc's default malloc is a mature memory allocator based on ptmalloc. By comparing the time they take to process a set of tasks in the same environment, we evaluate the performance of EPmalloc in handling memory requests for non-real-time tasks. The non-real-time task set was tested in an environment with 128 KB of memory. The experimental results are shown in Figure 8. In order to highlight the differences between allocation methods, the curves representing time consumption have been logarithmically scaled. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Memory Allocation Method** & **Max Response Delay** & **Average Response Delay** \\ \hline Default System Method & 2406 & 189 \\ EPmalloc & 1413 & 163 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Experimental results in the real-time zone (unit: \(\upmu\)s). Figure 7: Comparison between EPmalloc and the default system method. (**a**) Comparison of maximum response delay; (**b**) comparison of average response delay. The experimental results demonstrate the differences between EPmalloc and the other three memory allocators in terms of total execution time and execution time at several progress points. It can be observed that, as the number of completed tasks increases, the performance difference between EPmalloc and the other memory allocators becomes increasingly evident. In terms of performance comparison for the non-real-time task set, EPmalloc improves by 17.0% compared to mimalloc, 13.4% compared to TCMalloc, and 8.1% compared to the default malloc from the Glibc runtime library. Table 4 presents the time taken by several allocation algorithms at three task processing milestones. It can be observed that, as the progress of task processing advances, the performance advantage of EPmalloc gradually expands, proving its superior memory allocation efficiency in edge PLC environments. To test the performance of EPmalloc under different memory sizes, we conducted tests of the algorithm in environments with different memory sizes. We compared the time it took for EPmalloc and the three aforementioned memory allocators to process the same set of tasks under different memory sizes. The results are shown in Figure 9. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of Tasks Completed** & **Glibc** & ** TCMalloc** & **Mimalloc** & **EPmalloc** \\ \hline
25,000 & \(5.94\times 10^{5}\) & \(6.54\times 10^{5}\) & \(6.64\times 10^{5}\) & \(5.58\times 10^{5}\) \\
50,000 & \(1.19\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.32\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.33\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.11\times 10^{6}\) \\
100,000 & \(2.40\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.55\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.66\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.20\times 10^{6}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The time taken by several allocation algorithms at three task processing milestones (unit: ms). Figure 8: Comparison of EPmalloc with three memory allocators. The experimental results show that, in environments where memory is no larger than 128 KB, EPmalloc has a significant advantage over other allocators. It can be observed that, as the available memory size increases, the performance of EPmalloc does not increase significantly. The performance of other allocators in processing the task set generally improves as memory increases.