From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from m0.truegem.net (m0.truegem.net [69.55.228.47]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 434FF393C877 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:24:53 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 434FF393C877 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=maxrnd.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=mark@maxrnd.com Received: (from daemon@localhost) by m0.truegem.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) id 13D8Opxc085607 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 01:24:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@maxrnd.com) Received: from 162-235-43-67.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net(162.235.43.67), claiming to be "[192.168.1.20]" via SMTP by m0.truegem.net, id smtpduusE0K; Tue Apr 13 01:24:44 2021 Subject: Re: Maybe consider rpmalloc To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com References: <067987e2-e958-b56c-efea-25d827568453@maxrnd.com> <6f68b10b-7fe5-4378-afb9-9001de084edf@maxrnd.com> <3adb36f3-8740-3ff7-5f8a-90cdf3dfb64d@maxrnd.com> From: Mark Geisert Message-ID: <69159cfa-8fc5-283b-126b-740b841841cd@maxrnd.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 01:24:45 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Cygwin core component developers mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:24:57 -0000 Hi Teemu, Teemu Nätkinniemi wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for testing! I found a better test case with smaller files > which should clearly show the issue. > > https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jOilHtKrr6CHn7zg__DE93RCDyseoTB1?usp=sharing > > Here's the results. Bwa_working is the one with rpmalloc and > bwa_original is unpatched. As you can see the unpatched version with > several threads takes a whole lot more time to finish even when > compared with unpatched exe running with a single thread. I am not the > only one experiencing the issue so I doubt it is my system. [...] Well this certainly does show the issue(s) you're seeing. Short runs but long enough for me to get decent profiling. Yes, malloc code shows up a lot in the profiles. I'm going to research some stuff and ask some questions of the Cygwin gurus to see if we can do something about this. Thanks a bunch, ..mark