Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:14:16 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9.1 vs CentOS 6.3 Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmom9Hk40A189KE5OkJ=RZRRjPKrKqniKYR4E3%2BzzKWRXQQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BtpaK1fFWaTAm-diJ=WaBCD9zx3e5A_Jn2BZC_VLN5OpQULKg@mail.gmail.com> References: <514C1E5F.8040504@contactlab.com> <20130323213406.93cc3baddf69d5d71f10365e@neosystem.cz> <CAJ-Vmon%2BYfLbqBd_qu6bQpLkndX0865gTvtoYSxH_RNpfj%2Ba%2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CA%2BtpaK1fFWaTAm-diJ=WaBCD9zx3e5A_Jn2BZC_VLN5OpQULKg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yup, that one. I wonder if that has anything to do here.. Adrian On 23 March 2013 17:20, Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmom9Hk40A189KE5OkJ=RZRRjPKrKqniKYR4E3%2BzzKWRXQQ>