Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "bsdcan2006".
2010 Aug 09
0
[LLVMdev] MmapAllocator
.... That wouldn't be a problem if libc would
> use mmap() as the low-level allocator for malloc but it doesn't.
> It uses sbrk() mostly for small (<128k) allocations, and even with
> mmaps it caches them for a while.
Recommended reading: http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf
> I think that is because mmap() is slow in multithreaded apps, since it
> needs to take a process level lock, which also contends with the lock
> taken by pagefaults from other existing mmaps (in fact that lock is held
> during disk I/O!).
Sounds awesome, let's do th...
2010 Aug 09
3
[LLVMdev] MmapAllocator
...em if libc
> > would use mmap() as the low-level allocator for malloc but it
> > doesn't. It uses sbrk() mostly for small (<128k) allocations, and
> > even with mmaps it caches them for a while.
>
> Recommended reading:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf
If jemalloc provides same or better memory usage than
MMapAllocator, I think it'd be better to have a JEMallocAllocator
instead.
I think jemalloc is fairly portable (firefox uses it), isn't it?
>
> > I think that is because mmap() is slow in multithreaded apps, sinc...
2010 Aug 09
2
[LLVMdev] MmapAllocator
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:36:53 -0700
Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote:
>
> > I thought I dug into the register allocation code, and found the
> > VNInfo::Allocator typedef. I assumed that was getting the traffic
> > we saw in Instruments, but I don't have the data to back that up.
>
>
2010 Aug 09
0
[LLVMdev] MmapAllocator
...; would use mmap() as the low-level allocator for malloc but it
>> > doesn't. It uses sbrk() mostly for small (<128k) allocations, and
>> > even with mmaps it caches them for a while.
>>
>> Recommended reading:
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf
>
> If jemalloc provides same or better memory usage than
> MMapAllocator, I think it'd be better to have a JEMallocAllocator
> instead.
> I think jemalloc is fairly portable (firefox uses it), isn't it?
Reading the abstract, jemalloc seems like it has nothing t...