> One of the hopes of having a custom allocator for Python was to be > able to get rid off all free lists. For some reason that never happened. > Not sure why. People were probably too busy with adding new > features to the language at the time ;-)
Probably not. It's more that the free lists still outperformed pymalloc. > Something you could try to make PyMalloc perform better for the builtin > types is to check the actual size of the allocated PyObjects and then > make sure that PyMalloc uses arenas large enough to hold a good quantity > of them, e.g. it's possible that the float types fall into the same > arena as some other type and thus don't have enough "room" to use > as free list. I don't think any improvements can be gained here. PyMalloc carves out pools of 4096 bytes from an arena when it runs out of blocks for a certain size class, and then keeps a linked list of pools of the same size class. So when many float objects get allocated, you'll have a lot of pools of the float type's size class. IOW, PyMalloc has always enough room. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
