Am 02.02.2006 um 20:54 schrieb Andrew Piskorski:
Google's TCMalloc thing is also relevent, but it's not the malloc
replacement I was thinking of. Ah yes, I was thinking of "Hoard":
Oh, apparently most of such tools are really tuned to multi-cpu
systems. The problem I see is that when runnin
Am 02.02.2006 um 21:21 schrieb Gustaf Neumann:
how comes, that ckalloc is so much faster?
It avoids the malloc's lock and builds its own
malloc tables per-thread. So when lots of threads
start to attack the malloc, there is quite a lot
of contention on the mutex, so they go sleep for
a while.
Zoran Vasiljevic schrieb:
could not resist to try this on our p5 production system under
modest load
(64bit, linux, lpar with 25 processors, 8 dual-core with ibms
version of hyperthreading)
processor : 25
cpu : POWER5 (gr)
clock : 1904.448000MHz
revision
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:28:17PM +, Neophytos Demetriou wrote:
> Andrew Piskorski wrote:
> >If anyone is really interested in this, the best thing to do would be
> >to try various more sophisticated high-performance multi-threaded
> >malloc replacements, rather than just ns_malloc. This was
Andrew Piskorski wrote:
If anyone is really interested in this, the best thing to do would be
to try various more sophisticated high-performance multi-threaded
malloc replacements, rather than just ns_malloc. This was discussed a
bit on the AOLserver list a year or three ago, if anyone cares to
Andrew Piskorski wrote:
If anyone is really interested in this, the best thing to do would be
to try various more sophisticated high-performance multi-threaded
malloc replacements, rather than just ns_malloc. This was discussed a
bit on the AOLserver list a year or three ago, if anyone cares to
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
> For us: bottom line is: we will stay with ns_malloc as-is as the
> speed penalty vs. malloc on Solaris/Mac 1cpu is not worth the
> effort.
If anyone is really interested in this, the best thing to do would be
to try various more
Am 02.02.2006 um 15:52 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
I modified memtest to exclude thread related timings.
It is at the http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/tmp/memtest.c
when i call it with memtest 10 and +, mallocs gettting faster
than Tcl alloc on my single CPU box
After poking and poking a
I modified memtest to exclude thread related timings.
It is at the http://www.crystalballinc.com/vlad/tmp/memtest.c
when i call it with memtest 10 and +, mallocs gettting faster than
Tcl alloc on my single CPU box
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
Am 02.02.2006 um 13:59 schrieb Andrew Piskorski:
> Am 02.02.2006 um 12:01 schrieb Bernd Eidenschink:
> > Or is it supposed to run vry long on my machine? :-)
>
> No. I believe the Tcl library you linked with is
> not compiled with --enable-threads. Can you check that?
Thanks for your hint with the LD_LIBRARY_PATH... oh boy!
So, here:
-
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
this is my laptop, an IBM thinkpad X40: 1.4-GHz Pentium M
But this one this one is killing me! This one is a single-cpu, right?
Right.
I tried on single CPU box 3.2Ghz with 1Gb of RAM, on 2CPU box i got the
same result, ns_malloc is fatser
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
Am 01.02.2006 um 17:15 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
On my machine with tcl 8.4.12
starting 10 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 16003 usec
starting 10 ns_ma
Am 02.02.2006 um 14:48 schrieb Neophytos Demetriou:
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
Am 02.02.2006 um 14:10 schrieb Neophytos Demetriou:
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz [Hyperthreading]
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 58726 usec
starting 16 ckalloc threads...waitingdone:
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
Am 02.02.2006 um 14:10 schrieb Neophytos Demetriou:
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz [Hyperthreading]
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 58726 usec
starting 16 ckalloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 41410 usec
mult-icpu, right?
single
Am 02.02.2006 um 14:10 schrieb Neophytos Demetriou:
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz [Hyperthreading]
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 58726 usec
starting 16 ckalloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 41410 usec
mult-icpu, right?
IBM X40
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16
Am 02.02.2006 um 13:59 schrieb Andrew Piskorski:
Zoran, the boxes where you're tests show unexpectedly slow ns_malloc
were all Mac PowerPC boxes running OS-X, is that right? If so, then
the common thread here is OS-X, no? OS-X is known to be significantly
less efficient than Linux in some are
Intel Pentium 4 3GHz [Hyperthreading]
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 58726 usec
starting 16 ckalloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 41410 usec
IBM X40
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 101392 usec
starting 16 ckallo
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:44:47PM +0100, Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
> The timings what you get are what I expected on a multi-cpu box.
> However all our single-cpu boxes are WAY slower with ckalloc
> then with the regular malloc.
Zoran, the boxes where you're tests show unexpectedly slow ns_malloc
Am 02.02.2006 um 13:23 schrieb Gustaf Neumann:
could not resist to try this on our p5 production system under
modest load
(64bit, linux, lpar with 25 processors, 8 dual-core with ibms
version of hyperthreading)
processor : 25
cpu : POWER5 (gr)
clock : 1904.448000M
Zoran Vasiljevic schrieb:
This is what I get on single-cpu:
Tcl: 8.4.12
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 94103 usec
starting 16 ckalloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 243616 usec
and on 2CPU:
Tcl: 8.4.12
starting 16 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 second
Am 02.02.2006 um 12:01 schrieb Bernd Eidenschink:
Or is it supposed to run vry long on my machine? :-)
No. I believe the Tcl library you linked with is
not compiled with --enable-threads. Can you check that?
Zoran,
I compiled it w/o symbols but it seems to hang in MemTime:
Tcl: 8.4.11
starting 16 malloc threads...
Or is it supposed to run vry long on my machine? :-)
Bernd.
Am 02.02.2006 um 10:48 schrieb Bernd Eidenschink:
Hi Zoran,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2006 10:01 schrieb Zoran Vasiljevic:
Am 01.02.2006 um 17:15 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
On my machine with tcl 8.4.12
starting 10 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 16003 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc th
Hi Zoran,
Am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2006 10:01 schrieb Zoran Vasiljevic:
> Am 01.02.2006 um 17:15 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
> > On my machine with tcl 8.4.12
> >
> > starting 10 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 16003 usec
> > starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 1
Am 01.02.2006 um 17:15 schrieb Vlad Seryakov:
On my machine with tcl 8.4.12
starting 10 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 16003 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 13207
usec
I've been trying to see why I'm getting worse values with ns_malloc
as wit
On my machine with tcl 8.4.12
starting 10 malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 16003 usec
starting 10 ns_malloc threads...waitingdone: 0 seconds, 13207 usec
Zoran Vasiljevic wrote:
Hi!
Running the nsthreadtest utility reveals some interesting facts:
Mac OSX
starting 10 malloc t
26 matches
Mail list logo
