Ping.
On 08/03/2015 11:40 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> I've been compiling gcc with tcmalloc to do a similar speedup. It would be
>> interesting to compare that to your patch.
> I repeated the test with TCMalloc and jemalloc. TCMalloc shows nice
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I've been compiling gcc with tcmalloc to do a similar speedup. It would be
> interesting to compare that to your patch.
I repeated the test with TCMalloc and jemalloc. TCMalloc shows nice results,
though it required some tweaks: this allocator has
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> Mikhail Maltsev writes:
>>
>>> Hi, all!
>>> Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
>>> performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (per
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Mikhail Maltsev writes:
>
>> Hi, all!
>> Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
>> performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (perhaps
>> known)
>
> I've been compiling gcc with tc
Mikhail Maltsev writes:
> Hi, all!
> Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
> performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (perhaps
> known)
I've been compiling gcc with tcmalloc to do a similar speedup. It would be
interesting to compare tha
Hi, all!
Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (perhaps known)
hotspots. It seemed rather strange to me that pool allocators call malloc(3) and
free(3) rather often, and spend considerable time in ma
