Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:56:43 +0000 From: Jason Henson <jason@ec.rr.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: malloc vs ptmalloc2 Message-ID: <1108349803l.26586l.0l@BARTON> References: <1108277558l.86500l.0l@BARTON> <20050213082128.GA68307@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/13/05 03:21:29, David Schultz wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2005, Jason Henson wrote: > > I saw on a few of the lists here how linux uses ptmalloc2 and it > > outperforms bsd's malloc. I tried to do some research into it and > > found PHK's pdf on it and it seems bsd's malloc was ment to be ok =20 > in >=20 > > most every situation. Because of this it shines when primary =20 > storage > is > > seriously over committed. > > > > So here is my question, I use FreeBSD as a desktop and never ever > use > > swap(I just don't stress my system enough?), can I use ptmalloc in > > stead of malloc? Like defining SCHED_ULE instead of SCHED_4BSD. > Can > > the system malloc be switched out? >=20 > With a little bit of work, you should be able to replace > src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c. ptmalloc is much more heavyweight, > but it would probably do better in cases where you have a large > number of threads doing a massive number of malloc/free operations > on a multiprocessor system. Other than that, I don't know enough > details about ptmalloc to speculate, except to say that for most > real-world workloads on modern systems, the impact of the malloc > implementation is likely to be negligible. Of course, test > results would be interesting... I see what you mean by heavy weight! Looking through the sources. The =20 gains looked promising in this thread http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420BB1FF.11156.68F6CEC I might find the time for it, and if I do I hope it is not too =20 difficult.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1108349803l.26586l.0l>