about glibc performance

Jimmie zpjjimmie@163.com
Tue Mar 26 03:44:00 GMT 2019


glibc 2.17, and tcmalloc is the latest(gperftools 2.7 which is updated on 30 Apr 2018) .


And here is my environment:
redhat 4.8.5-16
x86_64


And tcmalloc is only better in bench_fastpath_stack_simple(8192).


Jimmie




At 2019-03-26 11:02:27, "Siddhesh Poyarekar" <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> wrote:
>That's really cool, thanks for doing this!  Is this the latest glibc
>or glibc-2.17?  Also, is tcmalloc the latest one too?
>
>As for glibc improvements, there are spikes in
>bench_fastpath_stack_simple(8192) and
>bench_fastpath_rnd_dependent(8192) that may be worth looking into.
>
>Siddhesh
>
>On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 07:50, Jimmie <zpjjimmie@163.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it's not a sufficient enough test, so I also use the benchmark from https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools/tree/master/benchmark, which is provided by google.
>> I also had the test result and attach to the attachment. You can download it and maybe you should open it with nodepad++ or some else to typeset nicely.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Jimmie
>>
>>
>> At 2019-03-25 17:46:51, "Siddhesh Poyarekar" <siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jimmie
>
>
>
>-- 
>http://siddhesh.in


More information about the Libc-help mailing list