From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28901 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2005 08:05:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28875 invoked by uid 48); 1 Nov 2005 08:05:12 -0000 Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 08:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051101080512.28874.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "roland at gnu dot org" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20051025141150.1541.sjmunroe@us.ibm.com> References: <20051025141150.1541.sjmunroe@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/1541] Poor threaded application performance when using malloc X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From roland at gnu dot org 2005-11-01 08:05 ------- Have you done any profiling to substantiate your analysis of why it is slower? I see nothing in the kernel to suggest that brk preallocates zero-fill pages. Your test program preallocates them in its early iterations and then reuses those pages by freeing and allocating repeatedly, I would suspect. Profiling would show the time spent in mmap/munmap syscalls vs spent faulting in pages, for example. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |roland at gnu dot org Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1541 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.