From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D50ED3858D32 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:57:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D50ED3858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1681351060; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=6xUX2vWvuyQT00gJypQOLEsCVO3k/qW02HqJBlyYk/k=; b=N5+g7/Bc150tP3Ivmp5b8pYpmENrjUj2evjlH1oMIK/cFgRpZl1cRMOD27DP5BIKidsB+n t7W0c31C3LrkYzzo/jsHlxB3/3Nn/TzDYdOt8RrJaUgdhY6j9PTnAUPsnD8nvietgys2lv 97bTDNoBH3ba71XlYCJ+EzhHtAnqiZc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-214-EX4Po8OMP0K4aU8obRshkg-1; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:57:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: EX4Po8OMP0K4aU8obRshkg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36779101A531; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:57:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com (unknown [10.22.8.251]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8ED47CE1; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 01:57:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 33D1vapH2470673; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:57:36 -0400 From: DJ Delorie To: Adhemerval Zanella Netto Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] memalign: Support scanning for aligned chunks. In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 21:57:36 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: Adhemerval Zanella Netto writes: > Yes and with malloc/tst-malloc-thread-fail-malloc-hugetlb1 as well. But > the hugetlb1 and hugetlb2 just essentially enable hugepages with extra > mprotect/madvise calls. I don't think they play a role in this issue > (they won't affect any metadata setting, just the timings on the tests). I still can't reproduce this; how much free memory is on that machine? Have you tested this particular setup without my patch? I inspected all the tcache code changes and didn't find anything...