Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 22:39:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Unga <unga888@yahoo.com> To: "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 excessive memory allocations [SOLVED] Message-ID: <1364449156.30979.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1364410923.36972.67.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <1364322902.78474.YahooMailNeo@web161904.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1364393170.36972.49.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <1364409226.37379.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1364410923.36972.67.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A=0A> =0A=0A> I think you may be reading too much into the malloc manpage= .=A0 When it=0A> mentions the use of per-thread small-object caches to avoi= d locking it's=0A> talking about performance, not thread safety.=A0 Allocat= ions of all sizes=0A> are thread-safe, the library just assumes that huge a= llocations are rare=0A> enough that it doesn't use extra per-thread resourc= es to avoid locking=0A> for them, it just uses locking for huge blocks.=0A>= =0A> -- Ian=0A>=0A=0AGood to note all allocations are thread safe in FreeB= SD. Is it by some standard that malloc should be thread safe regardless the= OS (BSDs, Linux, Windows, Android, etc)?=0A=0AUnga=0A
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1364449156.30979.YahooMailNeo>