From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 06:45:16 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AA516A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:45:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com (ms-smtp-02-lbl.southeast.rr.com [24.25.9.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A139343D2D for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:45:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jason@ec.rr.com) Received: from BARTON (cpe-065-184-201-054.ec.rr.com [65.184.201.54]) j1D6jDed015650 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:45:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:52:38 +0000 From: Jason Henson To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Balsa 2.2.6 Message-Id: <1108277558l.86500l.0l@BARTON> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Subject: malloc vs ptmalloc2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 06:45:16 -0000 I saw on a few of the lists here how linux uses ptmalloc2 and it =20 outperforms bsd's malloc. I tried to do some research into it and =20 found PHK's pdf on it and it seems bsd's malloc was ment to be ok in =20 most every situation. Because of this it shines when primary storage is =20 seriously over committed. So here is my question, I use FreeBSD as a desktop and never ever use =20 swap(I just don't stress my system enough?), can I use ptmalloc in =20 stead of malloc? Like defining SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD. Can =20 the system malloc be switched out? =20