search for: bsdcan2006

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...