From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130639 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2018 10:04:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 130629 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jan 2018 10:04:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=prog, assist X-HELO: mail-io0-f179.google.com Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-io0-f179.google.com) (209.85.223.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:04:27 +0000 Received: by mail-io0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 14so8449127iou.2 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:04:27 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Oh0zAhDy/MDRmdgmwSRD4UP/e4/+20CqvLF2wDtgdI0=; b=H9npiDbAZZnpSPJPmiG028KhTG5FS+m/zJgnQGdd1seEipYr9rRxVcl9FzeYrG7Le+ 39IgXR7txqMOLs+2xh+da5nr/wxoxyKTuSayUCqGCSUXInnvPth4ty1Q7fp90l7uwErH qczYqmfUy2W/j5+aOQsxZBxY2bzSqiCOQ7s7nfAfAbm/GI+Wlg7Sd/FFJKky0qBB1rgy ZAHtSYb8rExRM99aJkyTJYexhI4fC/UOs7tz44M6sjcOHtDq5El4NofI5EIbDx7ii3DW an06jjuY/LxYG3o55ffoXqzgqbnMQi2A+9bcU0gqaaDFIBXoS3cTNh9uSRorWCXHR15L AyPA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytest6Q56V1w+7uTBV/Sb3af/aFSxFDVYPmYxYSKIWvgLOlKmkC/ LFnwrauA5vqbqs5z63F8OVNjJa5fjN369BfquvQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBovEYn4VPX6uHY8mSjQqrp0mg/bUKqvOLpg6Iu8G/IfLV5ypC2jjbnxqyvhTuNKSGD3o2sSBRr0ppL6dOMC+8rY= X-Received: by 10.107.139.139 with SMTP id n133mr8817966iod.238.1515837865476; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:04:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.147.218 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2018 02:04:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20180112143339.GE24623@calimero.vinschen.de> References: <46515148-9f8e-6eae-69f9-9bf20921097a@t-online.de> <20180112143339.GE24623@calimero.vinschen.de> From: Lee Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: calloc speed difference To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 On 1/12/18, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 12 15:06, Christian Franke wrote: >> Lee wrote: >> > Why is the cygwin gcc calloc so much slower than the >> > i686-w64-mingw32-gcc calloc? >> > 1:12 vs 0:11 <.. snip example prog ..> >> >> Could reproduce the difference on an older i7-2600K machine: >> >> Cygwin: ~20s >> MinGW: ~4s <.. snip possible explanation ..> > > But then again, Cygwin's malloc *is* slow, particulary in > memory-demanding multi-threaded scenarios since that serializes all > malloc/free calls. > > The memory handling within Cygwin is tricky. Attempts to replace good > old dlmalloc with a fresher jemalloc or ptmalloc failed, but that only > means the developer (i.e., me, in case of ptmalloc) was too lazy... > busy! I mean busy... to pull this through. > > Having said that, if somebody would like to take a stab at replacing > dlmalloc with something leaner, I would be very happy and assist as > much as I can. I just took a quick look at some malloc code & docs and I know enough to know that I'm not going to be the one taking a stab at replacing dlmalloc. Sorry :( Lee -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple