site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=coriolis-systems.com; h= subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=aug07; bh=VOtPCrAWx9KqXVM2cmdkAJoRQc0=; b=TJmN/nkGNoFSNep5Amo5rfgs7HXs HSrgpD0Rkfzva/OtV4L/nM/D5nK/uirEAH+QA0pk6opTGNdLUYtARO5RaLEWAaJt Uw/MDvgkaJBmArwuUFvZRWOS8SUmyVxvotZo7De+xxgjhcJr3P6rvcx+F1h380ix flnE5sd2bcf9/Mw= On 6 May 2010, at 22:51, Joel Reymont wrote:

I would like to use jemalloc to replace the system memory allocator in Firefox.

Why do that? My understanding is that jemalloc's primary advantage is massive scalability for heavily threaded code. Firefox isn't *that* heavily threaded, right? In any event, the system allocator on Mac OS X has always been pretty good, and it looks like the Snow Leopard version is already designed with per-processor "magazines" for small allocations. 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. Not only does it mean that Firefox will get faster with every optimisation Apple makes to the system malloc, but it also means that all of the malloc debugging tools and so on will work with Firefox. Kind regards, Alastair. -- http://alastairs-place.net _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com