On Sun, Feb 13, 2005, Jason Henson wrote:
> I saw on a few of the lists here how linux uses ptmalloc2 and it
> outperforms bsd's malloc. I tried to do some research into it and
> found PHK's pdf on it and it seems bsd's malloc was ment to be ok in
> most every situation. Because of this it shines when primary storage
is
> seriously over committed.
>
> So here is my question, I use FreeBSD as a desktop and never ever
use
> swap(I just don't stress my system enough?), can I use ptmalloc in
> stead of malloc? Like defining SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD.
Can
> the system malloc be switched out?
With a little bit of work, you should be able to replace src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c. ptmalloc is much more heavyweight, but it would probably do better in cases where you have a large number of threads doing a massive number of malloc/free operations on a multiprocessor system. Other than that, I don't know enough details about ptmalloc to speculate, except to say that for most real-world workloads on modern systems, the impact of the malloc implementation is likely to be negligible. Of course, test results would be interesting...
I see what you mean by heavy weight! Looking through the sources. The gains looked promising in this thread
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420BB1FF.11156.68F6CEC
I might find the time for it, and if I do I hope it is not too difficult.
_______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
