[PATCH] calloc should not duplicate malloc logic.
Ondřej Bílka
neleai@seznam.cz
Wed Feb 26 17:24:00 GMT 2014
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:21:23PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 05:25:21PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > Siddhesh, before you speak you need check the facts. Use a benchmark
> > so you could quantify if it is worth of concern or difference will just
> > disappear in noise.
>
> You're posting a patch and also admitting to a performance regression.
> I'm not sure why you think I should spend my time writing a benchmark
> to refute your patch.
>
I did not said so, I said there could be minor regression and asked if
that is problem. Also there is problem of synchronization as independent
modifications would conflict and I want minimize these issue before they
happen
> > Siddhesh a following program already consumes a gigabyte in rss so your
> > claim is nonsense again.
> >
> > #include <malloc.h>
> > int main()
> > {
> > char *x = calloc (1000000000,1);
> > sleep(1000);
> > }
>
> You haven't understood why this is a bad idea. The pages will have
> been zeroed twice with your patch, once by mmap and again with memset.
>
I understood you perfecly and you are wrong here. Current implementation
also zeroes memory twice as this example demonstrates. Your point is
invalid here.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list