On 20/05/19 19:21 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
On 5/20/19 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
- r1->deallocate(p, 2);
+ r1->deallocate(p, 2, alignof(char));
+ __builtin_printf("%d\n", (int)bytes_allocated);
Was this last line really intended to be added ?
No, and I've already removed it
On 5/20/19 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
- r1->deallocate(p, 2);
+ r1->deallocate(p, 2, alignof(char));
+ __builtin_printf("%d\n", (int)bytes_allocated);
Was this last line really intended to be added ?
On 20/05/19 10:44 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/05/19 09:17 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 04/02/2019 07:33 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
On 03/07/2019 03:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
OK, that makes me feel better about it. It's presumably much easier to
upgrade to 5.2 from 5.0 or 5.1
On 20/05/19 09:17 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 04/02/2019 07:33 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
On 03/07/2019 03:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
OK, that makes me feel better about it. It's presumably much easier to
upgrade to 5.2 from 5.0 or 5.1 than it would be from 4.x.
How complicated is the
On 04/02/2019 07:33 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
> On 03/07/2019 03:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> OK, that makes me feel better about it. It's presumably much easier to
>> upgrade to 5.2 from 5.0 or 5.1 than it would be from 4.x.
>>
How complicated is the fix to prevent the crashes? Would
On 03/07/2019 03:43 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 22:27 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/06/2019 01:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 06/03/19 09:20 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 02:43 +, Pádraig
On 06/03/19 22:27 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 03/06/2019 01:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/03/19 09:20 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/03/19 02:43 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
Note
On 03/06/2019 01:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 09:20 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 06/03/19 02:43 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is
On 06/03/19 09:20 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/03/19 02:43 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is required to fix a bug with 0 sizes.
How serious is the bug? What are the
On 03/06/2019 12:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 06/03/19 02:43 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
>>>
Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is required to fix a bug with 0 sizes.
How serious is the bug? What are the symptoms?
>>> I've updated
On 06/03/19 02:43 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is required to fix a bug with 0 sizes.
How serious is the bug? What are the symptoms?
I've updated the commit summary to say it's a crash.
Arguably that's better than mem
On 02/26/2019 04:23 PM, Padraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Note jemalloc >= 5.1 is required to fix a bug with 0 sizes.
>>
>> How serious is the bug? What are the symptoms?
>>
> I've updated the commit summary to say it's a crash.
> Arguably that's better than mem corruption.
>
>> It looks like 5.1.0 is
On 02/26/2019 05:50 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/02/19 02:04 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Attached is a simple patch which has been extensively tested within
>> Facebook,
>> and is enabled by default in our code base.
>>
>> Passing the size to the allocator allows it to optimize
On 23/02/19 02:04 +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Attached is a simple patch which has been extensively tested within
Facebook,
and is enabled by default in our code base.
Passing the size to the allocator allows it to optimize deallocation,
and this was seen to significantly reduce the work
Attached is a simple patch which has been extensively tested within
Facebook,
and is enabled by default in our code base.
Passing the size to the allocator allows it to optimize deallocation,
and this was seen to significantly reduce the work required in jemalloc,
with about 40% reduction in CPU
15 matches
Mail list logo