Il 28 ago 2017 11:43 PM, "Pranith Kumar" ha scritto:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 08/27/2017 08:53 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> Using heaptrack, I found that quite a few of our temporary allocations
>> are coming from allocating work items. Instead of doing this
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 23:53:25 -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> Using heaptrack, I found that quite a few of our temporary allocations
>> are coming from allocating work items. Instead of doing this
>> continously, we can cache the allocated
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Richard Henderson
wrote:
> On 08/27/2017 08:53 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> Using heaptrack, I found that quite a few of our temporary allocations
>> are coming from allocating work items. Instead of doing this
>> continously, we can cache the allocated items and re
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 23:53:25 -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Using heaptrack, I found that quite a few of our temporary allocations
> are coming from allocating work items. Instead of doing this
> continously, we can cache the allocated items and reuse them instead
> of freeing them.
>
> This re
On 08/27/2017 08:53 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Using heaptrack, I found that quite a few of our temporary allocations
> are coming from allocating work items. Instead of doing this
> continously, we can cache the allocated items and reuse them instead
> of freeing them.
>
> This reduces the number
Using heaptrack, I found that quite a few of our temporary allocations
are coming from allocating work items. Instead of doing this
continously, we can cache the allocated items and reuse them instead
of freeing them.
This reduces the number of allocations by 25% (20 -> 15 for
ARM64 boot+s
