From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85253948018 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 18:39:41 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B85253948018 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=owlfolio.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owlfolio.org Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1429A320099A for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:39:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 05 Dec 2022 13:39:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=owlfolio.org; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1670265578; x= 1670351978; bh=Hgs1UAsiTm1WJIzsdL68/4Nh/f1dW8u2PNKA16D8Pgk=; b=I 9T4KnnvRBEkRp8GglW3hd4XJA0rSiq4xLVtxfMdFk3ZaiWxd7FpsTCxxOitlPBIG KLwoAL/A00rCGJf0G0IPELKO641p3Jhskf69usle6m/hLkY0YUOhtN3j25RAqJsT ard2whM6jd7JljSvDjZU5+sCpkXbx0x4bthmd1Yk5MChwWFXvIOWzSWRAf6Yt7ya XMR73Z/xuvo8SdsMWjWnvN4v+GhN14LZ+/vzbkFwDr267mMpuzF66OwDCnhFPdRx rPqxZK1hjVJubeJUz996z1sKEyQNdDxcomPdnpX5EumICOB7jXyrdEzbrH2DMxD0 DAb3EGnhP3h+Jtn5VddMQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1670265578; x=1670351978; bh=H gs1UAsiTm1WJIzsdL68/4Nh/f1dW8u2PNKA16D8Pgk=; b=HBVsiwaA7KegmmSMB Df4hj4H52WziGrDez6RjRc0/u1JaAQNaJowjPJI/6p2HbQrwGB6V/L1M0L6NiCOR jf760NKCywG6cS4Fvi0Lxsc9od56G6iHiI4djT/9ldXAws/ue4raspbP+x0RRhqm Q7xT7L0Bx9tnNapaQwAlrib3rdKzgLIQSdsOYRpb9Q8HoBHMFMH6cAU7U/g8GtMI odkKPzmP2mNS0bI6KaOXCZUZaIMmRfRmexTOAfZ+0kjZBobf6DOzE57GxKiYVOP4 iBilLWZrXieJxsldaJLJ0JR8Ekvg48XM2ME7TBetJbgk2fVzrSD11onDclA/rohQ 4GP3A== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrudeggdduudeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtje ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpegkrggtkhcuhggvihhnsggvrhhguceoiigrtghksehofihl fhholhhiohdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepgedvueegveefudfhvdffudejhf fgleektdduvdeffedvueeuhfduiefgtdevjeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptden ucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepiigrtghksehofihlfhholhhiohdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i876146a2:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:39:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 13:39:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH] malloc: Use correct C11 atomics for fastbin Content-Language: en-US To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: From: Zack Weinberg In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2022-12-02 1:55 PM, DJ Delorie via Libc-alpha wrote: > Wilco Dijkstra writes: >> If we want to make tcache actually work, it will have to support far more >> allocations, particularly for smaller sizes. > > You can test that with a tunable; the max count per bin is runtime > tunable. > > But yeah, the point of tcache is to have a few of many sizes for fast > allocations. Fastbins has a lot of a few small sizes. Testing showed > that both were required for best performance with the average > application. Every time we start talking about fastbins vs tcache again I start wondering, again, what's stopping us from replacing the entire malloc implementation with jemalloc, or any other implementation designed less than 20 years ago. zw