From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Mar 24 00:20:40 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F5544E;
 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:20:40 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com (mail-wg0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E290326E;
 Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:20:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id dq12so291457wgb.12
 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
 :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=uJMw1pad+HygDF696VP8QrVHwuRonrr1KDsglSMT4Rg=;
 b=e2/pecxyVWdVav312p2WoZ9a9ebp1GQYHnbJfbfVFCIAvMpj+JvKOkZe2ge8TJ8WFP
 jVIfvDNRJV+NVeK8a1LUUn7RucTz/v++i/5W6rBPcmyooP/WvFUGiY6YPy3paUStqG/N
 FDWB7zOVackE/0eNOIhuOYy4mbI/5Uqa3ljQoXoAorBJei0jm5yHqCPFy9DuOwxqzsel
 zUvhfUwsC92JiHXJfBv3U03lbIGU3UR2EJl+zO4C4GEd3+boHd2BZC1fbQ9uK5iMHWa5
 H53TxQalHxyVt4OTwfVoBLkP6hETgTI/vY6LfRkepOW1OT6Y3rLxrLC5cFW+yKhhDovc
 GjhA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.185.170 with SMTP id fd10mr18733934wic.0.1364084433120; 
 Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.140.20 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmon+YfLbqBd_qu6bQpLkndX0865gTvtoYSxH_RNpfj+a+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com>
 <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz>
 <CAJ-Vmon+YfLbqBd_qu6bQpLkndX0865gTvtoYSxH_RNpfj+a+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:20:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+tpaK1fFWaTAm-diJ=WaBCD9zx3e5A_Jn2BZC_VLN5OpQULKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3
From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 00:20:40 -0000

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recall that there were significant issues with jemalloc on
> computational loads, primarily because of the alignment jemalloc ends
> up giving to various allocation sizes and the cache-busting behaviour
> of that.
>
> Does anyone remember the thread in which that happened? Maybe someone
> posted a patch that lets people quickly tweak jemalloc to try and
> avoid this?
>

I think you mean this one:

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2013-January/041624.html