From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-90815-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 60571 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2018 18:57:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 60556 invoked by uid 89); 5 Mar 2018 18:57:09 -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,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mail-qt0-f170.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization
         :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to
         :content-language:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Hx0x3mkJTAYL4Oy5LUWJ05PwASy755jDNqQvvcLufKk=;
        b=Tevjw79ke9g+duFmt+t05Hl+IRe/L70OTUSOhKSotmsgIRI/1DnqGUsSGKD01v+taQ
         tLN4/J9YMvNS20zQFIBMzp0ymJwcl0fefB/nWZOnZCiwW7Q+0JhP/SdVNldcoEufVFtP
         040YBLfwZkE0gkkonxrv9IXD0jn+q2MZHL876N48FwPAc9ozxjtBtruGJ+aacvL1CuiB
         eJzJ0oo1xOk6twoSjS9sf7eOjrVl62/bEej7FESyU4E6VsON9ZBTcMTub4lyVx0Y/wVd
         ohdP++CtJl5AeFeDcvhKaXbNt6nhM2I5NHU+jK/+mY2cO9Tm8Nu74wRTAPfrrIP0iUdf
         GFqQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HmAzwjaKh4eI3I6uBJfENC7ai2yu3RnDoxeGl9UimcdJMLz/6M
	zApmD2zq6ivCEcSMfKRUOPuVhdvhJo8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsCtmpolof/NJefcJ3luSYxmfuRlU5gwEynmazov2tNb4ryg/ATWAFLrGXoi3Cvnw1U6fEHrw==
X-Received: by 10.200.62.10 with SMTP id z10mr24348327qtf.15.1520276226279;
        Mon, 05 Mar 2018 10:57:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Possible inline malloc alternatives: bitmap
To: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>,
 "eggert@cs.ucla.edu" <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>, =?UTF-8?B?T25kxZllaiBCw61sa2E=?=
 <neleai@seznam.cz>
Cc: nd <nd@arm.com>, "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
References: <DB6PR0801MB2053C3D9CB3268A349BE72B783DB0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <0e3c2297-7617-834d-6e28-1cc858d76e0f@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:57:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0801MB2053C3D9CB3268A349BE72B783DB0@DB6PR0801MB2053.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2

On 03/04/2018 06:07 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> I don't believe it is feasible to profile malloc more accurately, but
> neither is it necessary for a quick evaluation of malloc improvements
> like (de)allocation performance and fragmentation reduction. You
> always need to run the original benchmark to prove the gains are
> real.

100% agreed.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.