From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 15 19:11:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org 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 B4CF716A400 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:11:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jasone@FreeBSD.org) Received: from lh.synack.net (lh.synack.net [204.152.188.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61FEF43D49 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:11:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jasone@FreeBSD.org) Received: by lh.synack.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 0DAC95E4912; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:11:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.168.201] (moscow-cuda-gen2-68-64-60-20.losaca.adelphia.net [68.64.60.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lh.synack.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB9C5E4825; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:11:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <441866F3.5060407@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:11:47 -0800 From: Jason Evans User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John-Mark Gurney References: <20060315173553.34495.qmail@web32711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060315184345.GV840@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <20060315184345.GV840@funkthat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 (2005-11-28) on lh.synack.net X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.1 required=5.0 tests=LONGWORDS,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.5 Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, pfgshield-freebsd@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Solaris libumem port on the works X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:11:50 -0000 John-Mark Gurney wrote: > That's why I started work on rewriting a allocated based upon the > paper so that it'd have a BSD license... I haven't worked on it much, > and now that jemalloc is here, who knows... Are you referring to the 2001 Usenix paper by Bonwick and Adams? That paper is a very interesting read, and I'm convinced that their work is very useful for a range of resource management problems. However, that paper does not provide enough benchmarking information for general conclusions regarding userland malloc (libumem) performance. libumem is based on a highly abstracted resource management algorithm, and as a result it has extra layers that are unnecessary for a userland malloc. I expect this to make libumem somewhat subpar for most real workloads. The following article provides some supporting evidence: http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/multiproc/multiproc.html Note though that the benchmarks in that article also fall far short of providing conclusive evidence regarding relative performance of the tested allocators. (Definitive malloc benchmarking is Hard.) Jason