This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Enhancing malloc


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:00:09PM +0100, Nix wrote:
> On 28 May 2013, OndÅej BÃlka stated:
> 
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 06:24:44PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 02:33:17PM +0200, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> >> > You must take into account that malloc requests are small. I did some
> >> > measurements at
> >> > http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/benchmark_string/malloc_profile_28_11_2012.tar.bz2 
> >> 
> >> For malloc and friends, the comparison should also include the effect
> >> of the change on fragmentation (internal as well as external) and not
> >> just speed of execution.
> >>
> > This depends if you use bash time builtin or /usr/bin/time.
> > Later has all information needed (but better formating than default is
> > welcome, see below.)
> 
> Not so. /usr/bin/time certainly does not report arena fragmentation in
> any fashion. Memory usage != arena fragmentation.
> 
It does, fragmentation = memory usage / memory requested.

When you run same deterministic program with different allocators memory
requests are same so difference in memory usage is caused by fragmentation.

Also fragmentation is just a tool to estimate memory usage not other
way around. Big memory usage causes out of memory condition which we
want avoid.

This implies that you should focus on peak memory usage instead of
average as this is what kills.

Of course that fragmentation affects cache locality and thus performance
but as time measurement already count this this aspect is superflows.
> -- 
> NULL && (void)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]