From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 29 05:00:10 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFD516A41F; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:00:09 +0000 (GMT) (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 84BAE43D46; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:00:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jasone@freebsd.org) Received: by lh.synack.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 40F4D5E48E3; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:00:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.168.203] (moscow-cuda-gen2-68-64-60-20.losaca.adelphia.net [68.64.60.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lh.synack.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ADDE5E48A3; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:00:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <43B36B83.7080404@freebsd.org> References: <43B36B83.7080404@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <32729773-B07C-4AEE-92D0-62ACE0E3AFEB@freebsd.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jason Evans Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:00:04 -0800 To: David Xu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on lh.synack.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.4 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New malloc ready, take 42 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:00:10 -0000 On Dec 28, 2005, at 8:52 PM, David Xu wrote: > Jason Evans wrote: > >> So, how about it? Is jemalloc ready to go in now? >> Thanks, >> Jason > > I have tested super-smack with your patch on my Pentium-D machine: > CPU : P4 dual-core 2.8Ghz > Memory: 1G bytes > I am using libthr. > > phkmalloc can reach about 21000 query-per-s. > jemalloc can only reach about 15000 query-per-s, > about 28% performance is dropped. That is a much different result than Kris Kennaway got on a dual-dual Opteron system, as well as my results on a 3.2 GHz P4. Can you please provide details on what version of the jemalloc patch you used, which MALLOC_OPTIONS flags you used, what parameters you specified to super-smack, etc.? A Pentium-D should behave similarly to two single-core CPUs, right? Thanks, Jason