Re: jemalloc?

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Vlad Galu wrote:
>   It looks like the extra spage usage was fixed by Jason Evans around
> March. The Google link provided by Freddie Cash pretty much covers
> every info you needed. I can perform further benchmarks if needed. But
> I think I'll not do it, given the reluctance on the list. I'm
> certainly not the best judge for this level of technical detail.

I can't spot a definite reluctance.  Some people are conservative, some people say "why not, if it is good".  I think it shows promising numbers, but we will probably not experience the reduced contention because our userland threading is still 1:N.

In any case, we slowly need a formalized benchmark suite to spot regressions and prove that new code does what it advertises.  An allocator benchmark is needed for sure as well.

I think that jemalloc will perform better than phkmalloc in almost all cases.  However I get the feeling that it is a little bit complicated, but maybe I just don't have the right knowledge about allocators.  If nothing breaks I'm for including jemalloc, maybe not as default (I wouldn't see why not), but as runtime switchable allocator (/etc/malloc.type -> jemalloc)

cheers
 simon

--
Serve - BSD     +++  RENT this banner advert  +++    ASCII Ribbon   /"\
Work - Mac      +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++      Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature