On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:31 PM, Jameson Miller <jamill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This patch series improves the performance of loading indexes by >> reducing the number of malloc() calls. Loading the index from disk is >> partly dominated by the time in malloc(), which is called for each >> index entry. This patch series reduces the number of times malloc() is >> called as part of loading the index, and instead allocates a block of >> memory upfront that is large enough to hold all of the cache entries, >> and chunks this memory itself. This change builds on [1]. > > I have only looked at the mem-pool related patches to see if > mem-pool.c is good enough to replace alloc.c. To me, it's a "yes" > after we optimize mem_pool_alloc() a bit (not that performance really > matters in alloc.c case, but that may be because it's already > blazingly fast that we never noticed about it). alloc.c was not just about speed, but mostly about dense packing? 855419f764a (Add specialized object allocator, 2006-06-19) To me it is also a clear yes when it comes to combining these two memory pools.
