JDevlieghere added a comment. In D149214#4300547 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149214#4300547>, @bulbazord wrote:
> In D149214#4300491 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149214#4300491>, @aprantl wrote: > >> Did you also measure the extra memory consumption? I would be surprised if >> this mattered, but we do parse a lot of DWARF DIEs... >> >> Generally this seems fine. > > I compared the memory profile before/after this change. The summary is that > we consume about 50% more memory on average (283mb vs 425mb) but our total > number of allocations is down by over half. This makes sense because the size > of `DWARFAbbreviationDeclaration` now includes the size of 8 > `DWARFAttribute`s, so when we create the `DWARFAbbreviationDeclaration` and > copy it into the `DWARFAbbreviationDeclarationSet`'s vector, we're going to > allocate more memory to hold each one. However, most > `DWARFAbbreviationDeclaration`s probably don't use all 8 slots of the > `SmallVector` on average, so maybe we could tune this number further to > reduce overall memory consumptions? I think it would be worthwhile to take something like clang and see how many abbreviations there are on average. I assume that should be relatively easy to track as a running average with a static variable. I also wonder what the performance hit would be if we went down to say 4 and have to allocate on the heap more frequently. I don't think it makes sense to use a non-power-of-2 value. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D149214/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D149214 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
