[Inada Naoki]
>> So I tried to use LIKELY/UNLIKELY macro to teach compiler hot part.
>> But I need to use
>> "static inline" for pymalloc_alloc and pymalloc_free yet [1].
[Neil Schemenauer]
> I think LIKELY/UNLIKELY is not helpful if you compile with LTO/PGO
> enabled.
I like adding those regardless of whether compilers find them helpful:
they help _people_ reading the code focus on what's important to
speed. While not generally crucial, speed is important in these very
low-level, very heavily used functions.
Speaking of which, another possible teensy win: pymalloc's allocation
has always started with:
if (nbytes == 0) {
return 0;
}
if (nbytes > SMALL_REQUEST_THRESHOLD) {
return 0;
}
size = (uint)(nbytes - 1) >> ALIGNMENT_SHIFT;
But it could be a bit leaner:
size_t fatsize = (nbytes - 1) >> ALIGNMENT_SHIFT;
if (UNLIKELY(fatsize >= NB_SMALL_SIZE_CLASSES)) {
return 0;'
}
size = (uint)fatsize;
The `nbytes == 0` case ends up mapping to a very large size class
then, although C may not guarantee that. But it doesn't matter: if
it maps to "a real" size class, that's fine. We'll return a unique
pointer into a pymalloc pool then, and "unique pointer" is all that's
required.
An allocation requesting 0 bytes does happen at times, but it's very
rare. It just doesn't merit its own dedicated test-&-branch.
> Good work looking into this. Should be some relatively easy
> performance win.
Ditto!
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RE44X7IP464I4KDPJPG3LF5NV5P27DHU/
