Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:10:19 -0800
From:      Jason Evans <jasone@freebsd.org>
To:        Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>
Cc:        Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: jemalloc enhancement for small-memory systems
Message-ID:  <2698981A-EA71-41BD-A9B3-FCD130EB3832@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <75ECE5AB-9276-44BA-84D7-56EF6BDC3984@kientzle.com>
References:  <1356204505.1129.21.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <75ECE5AB-9276-44BA-84D7-56EF6BDC3984@kientzle.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 22, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> wrote:
> Would it be feasible for jemalloc to initially allocate
> small blocks (to not over-allocate for small programs and
> systems with small RAM) and then allocate successively
> larger blocks as the program requires more memory?

All chunks must be the same size in jemalloc, so it's not possible to =
increase chunk size over the lifetime of an application.  As Ian said, =
chunk size isn't a major factor in physical memory usage unless =
mlockall(2) enters the picture.

Jason=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2698981A-EA71-41BD-A9B3-FCD130EB3832>