Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 11:08:20 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: "Andrew V. Stesin" <stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What I'd like to see brought to -stable Message-ID: <199602011808.LAA20364@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199602011252.OAA11080@office.elvisti.kiev.ua> References: <199602011050.CAA01444@Root.COM> <199602011252.OAA11080@office.elvisti.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew V. Stesin writes: [ Wishlist for -stable ] > # >2. "phk malloc" by Paul Henning Kampf. It's one of the best performance > # > improvements I've seen, why recompile approx. entire world after > # > dropping it into an installed system? And, taken from -current, > # > it works without a glitch -- only _times_ faster :) > # > # No, sorry, this won't be in the release. The main problem is that phk's > # malloc does a better job recycling memory and this exposes bugs in > # applications. ... > New malloc() is of _much_ less risk to use than, for example, > brand new UNIX pipes. The same with userland utils. Huh? Very few applications use pipes, but *lots* (most) of the applications use malloc, so using simple math the chances of a serious bug occuring because of phk-malloc will be greater than bugs found with pipes. Now, given the amount of time that phk-malloc has had to get beat on in -current it's unlikely that real obvious bugs still exist, but there is still a chance. > And who forbids you, in case things are going wrong in > -stable snapshots (they're experimental, anyway), > replace phk malloc back with todays one? That goes against the grain of -stable. That's what -current is for. :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602011808.LAA20364>