public inbox for libc-alpha@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add malloc micro benchmark
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 16:46:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b06da97c-3336-4385-377f-ac2872e48b88@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54c9f9e0-5939-4b98-e36b-76383f276f35@redhat.com>



On 05/01/2018 14:17, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 01/05/2018 07:50 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/01/2018 12:32, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2018 05:48 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>>> Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't use mallopt, please make it a tunable then.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mallopt API already had 2 secret arena options which eventually became
>>>>> so well used they were baked into the API and had to be made public.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately tunables are not exported so you can't use them outside of GLIBC:
>>>>
>>>> /build/glibc/benchtests/bench-malloc-simple.o: In function `bench':
>>>> bench-malloc-simple.c:(.text+0x19c): undefined reference to `__tunable_set_val'
>>>> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>>>
>>> Correct, we only have a env-var frontend right now, and the internal API is not
>>> made accessible via GLIBC_PRIVATE.
>>>
>>> You have 3 options for tests:
>>>
>>> * Use the env vars to adjust test behaviour. Run the tests multiple times.
>>> * Add a new C API frontend, very valuable, but more time consuming.
>>> * Expose the existing internal C API via GLIBC_PRIVATE for testing, and throw
>>>   it away later when we get a proper C API frontend.
>>>
>>
>> Do we want a C API to tied the malloc implementation to some tunables? My
>> understanding is the tunable api idea is not really enforce retro-compability
>> (where a C api would enforce it).
>  
> If we add a C API to the tunables, we would honour that API for tunables for
> all time, but the tunables themselves would not be stable.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> * get list of tunables supported
> * get the default value for a tunable
> * get the value of a tunable
> * set the value of a tunable
> 
> So you would use this API in the tests to get the tunable list, assert the
> tcache tunable was accepted (or fail the test), and then set it to a special
> value for the part of the test that needs it.

Right, this seems a reasonable approach (although I think out of the scope for
this change).

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-05 16:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-01 13:51 [PATCH] " Wilco Dijkstra
2017-12-01 16:13 ` Carlos O'Donell
2017-12-18 15:18   ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-12-18 16:33     ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-01-02 18:20       ` [PATCH v2] " Wilco Dijkstra
2018-01-02 18:45         ` DJ Delorie
2018-01-03 12:12           ` Wilco Dijkstra
2018-01-03 15:07             ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-01-04 13:48               ` Wilco Dijkstra
2018-01-04 16:37                 ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-01-05 14:32                 ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-01-05 15:50                   ` Adhemerval Zanella
2018-01-05 16:17                     ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-01-05 16:46                       ` Adhemerval Zanella [this message]
2018-01-05 17:28                         ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-01-05 14:33         ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-01-05 16:28           ` Joseph Myers
2018-01-05 17:26             ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-28 12:57               ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-28 15:16                 ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-02-28 16:16                   ` Florian Weimer
2018-02-28 18:21                     ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-28 23:17                       ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-02-28 19:56                     ` Ondřej Bílka
2018-02-28 20:17                       ` Wilco Dijkstra
2018-02-28 21:56                         ` Carlos O'Donell
2018-02-28 21:56                         ` Ondřej Bílka
     [not found]                           ` <xnmuzssrqr.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
2018-03-01 11:24                             ` Ondřej Bílka
2017-12-18 23:02     ` [PATCH] " DJ Delorie
2017-12-28 14:09       ` Wilco Dijkstra
2017-12-28 19:01         ` DJ Delorie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b06da97c-3336-4385-377f-ac2872e48b88@linaro.org \
    --to=adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org \
    --cc=carlos@redhat.com \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).