Re: jemalloc to replace default allocator
Re: jemalloc to replace default allocator
- Subject: Re: jemalloc to replace default allocator
- From: Alastair Houghton <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 11:39:55 +0100
On 7 May 2010, at 11:08, Joel Reymont wrote:
> On May 7, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Alastair Houghton wrote:
>
>> Personally, unless you have a really good justification for using jemalloc instead (and I'd argue that, for that, you need measurements showing that it's significantly faster than the system implementation), I'd stick with the system malloc.
>
> I get your point but let's just say this is something I've been tasked with. Apparently, the Javascript team discovered that too much time is being spent in free, or something like that. My goal is to plug in jemalloc and then let the Javascript team profile again.
So maybe the solution is to look why the Javascript interpreter is releasing (and presumably allocating) so much? Or perhaps to consider whether giving it its own zone would be a useful thing to do (though you may very well not need to use a different allocation routine).
Do you have the output from Shark for one of these cases to show you which code path it's hitting and where it's really spending its time?
Kind regards,
Alastair.
--
http://alastairs-place.net
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden