posix_memalign performance regression in 2.38?

[Noah Goldstein]

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 2:50 PM DJ Delorie via Libc-alpha
<libc-alpha@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> writes:
> > It seems to be caused by 24cdd6c71debfd10a9f7cb217fe2a2c4c486ed6f, where
> > posix_memalign now calls chunk_ok_for_memalign (which takes most of time).
> >
> > DJ, any idea on how we can improve this?
>
> This was not unexpected, as we're adding more logic to the memalign
> family of functions in order to use less memory.  We can do some
> optimizations in this area but it will remain a balancing act between
> speed and memory usage.
>
> The old code was terrible wrt memory usage.
>

How is the perf compared to malloc?