From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar 28 06:52:08 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A7FB9F
 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:08 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mauzo@anubis.morrow.me.uk)
Received: from isis.morrow.me.uk (isis.morrow.me.uk [204.109.63.142])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90727FD9
 for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from anubis.morrow.me.uk
 (host86-173-252-28.range86-173.btcentralplus.com [86.173.252.28])
 (Authenticated sender: mauzo)
 by isis.morrow.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C005F45046;
 Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:42:23 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.7.4 isis.morrow.me.uk C005F45046
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=morrow.me.uk;
 s=dkim201101; t=1364452944;
 bh=40EKzLwhhrzSHhxzaoWfmqTIABYhpIb5VQUMnIhgQaY=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=09Zillg14Mp/QyiF6D1oQSOcuke2QYTH9ldtRedmeFN8IByoPqunF9dsLXGiY0VK1
 G8AEewcsgw7Cg3+Cc9dFIsYwLgInGMjXNKdEchchwVuZPWyESEEVSU2tKecKOXreeX
 pmaTtYnInlkSgWFRgDyrC1N3xsxcCaXz1sXR3OtY=
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.6 at isis.morrow.me.uk
Received: by anubis.morrow.me.uk (Postfix, from userid 5001)
 id 761CBA298; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:42:20 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:42:20 +0000
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
To: unga888@yahoo.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 excessive memory allocations [SOLVED]
Message-ID: <20130328064216.GA30925@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1364449156.30979.YahooMailNeo@web161906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
X-Newsgroups: gmane.os.freebsd.stable
Organization: morrow.me.uk
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:52:08 -0000

Quoth Unga <unga888@yahoo.com>:
> 
> > I think you may be reading too much into the malloc manpage.  When it
> > mentions the use of per-thread small-object caches to avoid locking it's
> > talking about performance, not thread safety.  Allocations of all sizes
> > are thread-safe, the library just assumes that huge allocations are rare
> > enough that it doesn't use extra per-thread resources to avoid locking
> > for them, it just uses locking for huge blocks.
> 
> Good to note all allocations are thread safe in FreeBSD. Is it by some
> standard that malloc should be thread safe regardless the OS (BSDs,
> Linux, Windows, Android, etc)?

POSIX (well, SUSv4 at least) says that malloc and free must be
threadsafe. Note that Windows is not a POSIX system, though I belive
malloc is also always threadsafe on Windows.

Ben