| 1 |
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:33:44 -0500 |
| 2 |
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies between |
| 5 |
> what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc allocated: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> http://www.sintel.org/development/memory-jemalloc/ |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Results such as these led Blender and others (e.g. Chrome/Chromium, |
| 10 |
> Firefox, Thunderbird) to bundle private versions of jemalloc. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Thre real disease is Windows support for all the mentioned apps. |
| 13 |
glibc is not that bad. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I suspect |
| 16 |
export MALLOC_CHECK_=0 |
| 17 |
and |
| 18 |
CFLAGS=-fno-stack-protector |
| 19 |
would solve all those bookkeeping "issues" glibc dumps on you |
| 20 |
by default. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
malloc() (likely free()) performance dependency for an app |
| 23 |
means writing custom allocators. IMHO it's a per-app problem, |
| 24 |
not system-wide one. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Do you have degradation example for your use cases? (a sample |
| 27 |
program for real workload) Fixing known deficiencies is always |
| 28 |
simpler than switching known-to-work base. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> This bundling situation violates our policy against bundled libraries. The |
| 31 |
> maintainers could just patch their software to link to libjemalloc. |
| 32 |
> However, it might make more sense to evaluate jemalloc as a |
| 33 |
> distribution-wide replacement for glibc's ptmalloc. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It would not solve bundling problem, would it? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Unless a significant issue is found in jemalloc itself, I do not see any |
| 38 |
> reason to continue using glibc's ptmalloc over jemalloc. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
How about "that core piece of libc works fine"? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Sergei |
Archives