Thanks for sharing jemalloc use-cases. We should keep it. In <cabhgd7gozfvga018w9-tvsvjx4b-aqj9etr934ltrzucdpw...@mail.gmail.com> "Re: [Discuss][C++] Switch to mimalloc by default?" on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:37:09 -0700, Anja <anja.kef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do know of use-cases where users explicitly set jemalloc as their > preferred allocator. I would recommend keeping it. > > On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 08:09, Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Kou, >> >> Le 09/06/2024 à 09:16, Sutou Kouhei a écrit : >> > >> > Questions: >> > >> > 1. Do we need to keep jemalloc support? Compatibility? Can we >> > drop support for jemalloc to decrease maintenance cost? >> >> I'm not sure there's much maintenance cost. I expect some people might >> prefer jemalloc, and perhaps it performs better on some use cases. So >> for now I would recommend keeping it. >> >> > 2. Is it OK that we add support for system mimalloc? >> >> Hmm... that sounds legitimate, but with the caveat that a system >> mimalloc can override the standard malloc/free functions. Would that >> affect an application using Arrow C++? >> >> > FYI: In general, I want to use system libraries as much as >> > possible. But we can't use system jemalloc for bindings >> > because most system jemalloc don't support dlopen(): >> > https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/32530 >> >> We use something similar for mimalloc: >> >> https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/036fca0ae5c8956c83b69478d413c24f32398f8c/cpp/cmake_modules/ThirdpartyToolchain.cmake#L2223 >> >> Regards >> >> Antoine. >>
