[PATCH] Simple malloc benchtest.

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Will Newton <will.newton@linaro.org> writes:

> [...]  It looks like you are using uniformly distributed random
> numbers for allocation sizes. This doesn't necessarily bear any
> relation to what actual allocation sizes are used in a real
> application [...]  This means we run through doing a long stream of
> malloc and then a long stream of free. That is again not close to
> application behaviour so I would recommend we interleave malloc and
> free calls in order to introduce some stress on the allocator.

Instead of making up ad-hoc microbenchmarks, how about tracing the
malloc/free traffic of a real application or a dozen, and using an
amalgam of such large traces to drive the measurements?  (Insert
cache-invalidation between operations as indicated by e.g. cachegrind
or timestamps.)

- FChE