This is the mail archive of the 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: [PATCH] malloc: add locking to thread cache

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 08:19:02PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Then it should be sufficient if you can describe what you actually
> measured to convince Szabolcs; if your measurement is as good as you
> seem to say it is, it should be obvious why his (and your prior)
> concerns are unfounded.  Up to now, you just stated that you did measure
> something.

I believe I ran my testsuite (see tarball from the other subthread) with
and without locking for the thread cache.  Signal torture obviously
didn't finish without locking.  The performance impact for the others
was well in the noise.  Maybe with a few hundred repetitions I could
have extracted some non-noise signal, but I was happy with that result.

Since my testsuite spends >50% of the time in malloc, any real-world
results would get diluted even further.

> I'd also like to kindly point out that we're not on LKML here.  We all
> will understand you better if you provide sounds arguments and provide
> the necessary background information instead of if you "call bullshit".


I have little patience for theoretical concerns that block real
improvements based on zero evidence.  But I shouldn't drop my manners
because of that.  Apologies.


The cheapest, fastest and most reliable components of a computer
system are those that aren't there.
-- Gordon Bell, DEC labratories

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