Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:41:35 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.dk.tfs.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, dg@root.com, swallace@ece.uci.edu Subject: Re: exec bug Message-ID: <7862.854311295@critter.dk.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Jan 1997 05:34:36 %2B1100." <199701261834.FAA05327@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199701261834.FAA05327@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bruce Evans writes: >No, I'm iterating 1000 times, so the malloc initialization time is in >the noise (unless it is done every time). Also, printf() probably calls >malloc() so the malloc initization time is already paid for. Here's a >version with more knobs to twiddle. Well, phkmalloc can be a bit undeterministic in this respect, if you want to be almost sure you get a fair picture do this: for (i=4;i<12;i++) malloc(1<<i); That way you know that you have one page of each size ready. printf allocates an entire page and thus doesn't really initialize the "sub-page" stuff in phkmalloc. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Power and ignorance is a disgusting cocktail.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7862.854311295>