I've run with fast alloc, without fast alloc and without fast alloc
but with tcmalloc (http://code.google.com/p/gperftools/). I've run each
twice and the results are reasonable conclusive. FastAlloc appears to be
slightly faster (1-2%) after increasing the max size to 1024 bytes and
adding FastAlloc to a few more classes in the O3 CPU. TCMalloc is an
astonishingly 8%-10% faster, so I vote for TCMalloc. 

Thanks, 

Ali


On 29.05.2012 14:11, Steve Reinhardt wrote: 

> Thanks! If there
actually is a consistent 1.5% performance improvement I'd
> be pretty
impressed, particularly since (according to Ali) FastAlloc isn't
>
actually being used for DynInsts. Of course, 1.5% could well be within
the
> measurement error too.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at
10:41 AM, William Wang <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> A simple
check showed there isn't much difference by turning NO_FAST_ALLOC on.
Simple test (nothing conclusive without more rigorous testing), Linux
booting ARM O3, with NO_FAST_ALLOC set to FALSE (default) and TRUE,
showed that FastAlloc is 1.5% better than without. According to this
graph http://www.m5sim.org/docs/classFastAlloc.html [3], FastAlloc is
probably used mostly in BaseDynInst, Event, LSQUnit and Packet. 
>> 
>>>
My guess is that we should just stop using it since we're heading
towards multithreaded code anyway. I'd be quite surprised if it were
better than malloc. One real win that we could get is if we could take
advantage of partially constructed objects (I think that was in the
original slab allocator paper).
>> 
>>> - I wouldn't take it on faith
that FastAlloc is faster. It might be,
>> but I flag); it would be
interesting to see if that matters. Of course, if most story.
> 
>
_______________________________________________
> gem5-dev mailing
list
> [email protected]
> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev




Links:
------
[1] mailto:[email protected]
[2]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
[3]
http://www.m5sim.org/docs/classFastAlloc.html
_______________________________________________
gem5-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev

Reply via email to