Ping.
On 08/03/2015 11:40 AM, Mikhail Maltsev wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> I've been compiling gcc with tcmalloc to do a similar speedup. It would be
>> interesting to compare that to your patch.
> I repeated the test with TCMalloc and
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
I've been compiling gcc with tcmalloc to do a similar speedup. It would be
interesting to compare that to your patch.
I repeated the test with TCMalloc and jemalloc. TCMalloc shows nice results,
though it required some tweaks:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
Mikhail Maltsev malts...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, all!
Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
performance improvement among
Mikhail Maltsev malts...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, all!
Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (perhaps
known)
I've been compiling gcc with tcmalloc to do a similar speedup. It would be
interesting
Hi, all!
Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (perhaps known)
hotspots. It seemed rather strange to me that pool allocators call malloc(3) and
free(3) rather often, and spend considerable time in
On Jul 26, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
Mikhail Maltsev malts...@gmail.com writes:
Hi, all!
Recently I did some profiling of GCC to find hotspots and areas of possible
performance improvement among them. glibc malloc(3) is one of (perhaps
known)
I've