This is the mail archive of the libc-help@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: Re: about glibc performance


On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:11, Jimmie <zpjjimmie@163.com> wrote:
>
> It seems like that I can't send attachment to libc-help. so I simply describe my test results.<br/>malloc and free 10000 times in per-thread, the datas is below(left column represent memsize per malloc. and the other column represent the cost time it uses, )

Thank you for sharing your results.  While the results are very
tempting to share (because of my obvious bias as a glibc developer),
simply allocating and freeing repeatedly in per-thread may not be a
sufficient enough test.  This does show that glibc does significantly
better than tcmalloc for same size reallocations, but not much else.
That is unless you're baking in a way to mix up the sizes and
allocations that mimic some known real world workload(s).

If you're interested in pursuing this further, I would recommend
profiling a program like firefox or libreoffice to find
malloc/calloc/realloc/free calls and then mimicing that workload
somehow.  That would be a much nicer benchmark to do this kind of
comparison.

Thanks,
Siddhesh


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