johan...@sun.com wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 01:33:15AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: > > Can you check whether the memory allocator in libast performs better in > > this case (e.g. compile with $ cc -I/usr/include/ast/ -last ... # (note: > > libast uses a |_ast_|-prefix for all symbols and does (currently) not > > act as |malloc()| interposer)). > > What would the outcome of this experiment tell us about the problem that > Bob is facing?
libast (at least the version which will be included with ksh93-integration update2) includes multiple (selectable) algorithms to handle small allocation sizes and multiple (selectable) backends for the allocations (e.g. using |sbrk()| + using |mmap()| (either anon mem or via /dev/zero)). The idea was that this may help figuring out whether the choice of backend is responsible or not... > I would like to avoid having a discussion about memory allocation > performance devolve into an argument about the orthodoxy of allocator > choice. This is why I asked Bob if we could dig into the specifics of > the problem before running other comparisons. Ok... ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.ma...@nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ perf-discuss mailing list perf-discuss@opensolaris.org
