[PATCH 0/9] malloc: Remove fastbins

[DJ Delorie]

Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:
> * DJ Delorie:
>
>> So I ran some big benchmarks over the weekend to see what they said...
>> I tested three source trees: unpatched, patched with the N/9 "remove
>> fastbins" patch set, and one with that plus Florians's proposed
>> batch-free patch.
>
> Did you apply the batched malloc part as well?

I applied whatever was in your email ;-)

>> I admit the machine running the test was not as "quiet" as it could have
>> been, but I had plenty of ram and cores to avoid artificial slowdowns.
>> Plus, I was looking for big changes, not small ones.
>>
>> I used two tests: the first is the original trace simulator I used when
>> benchmarking tcache, along with the workloads used then.  The raw
>> numbers are total CPU cycles; smaller is better.
>
> Are those retired cycles?  How are these measured?  For multi-thread
> programs with some kernel overhead, using wall clock time is probably
> better.

IIRC it was CPU cycle clock time.  It's trace_run.c from:
https://pagure.io/glibc-malloc-trace-utils/