On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:22:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 22:08:26 -0700 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Daniel also had microbenchmark testing results for glibc and jemalloc. > > > Can you please do this? > > > > I run Daniel's microbenchmark too, and not surprise the result is > > similar: > > glibc: 32.82 > > jemalloc: 70.35 > > jemalloc+mremap: 33.01 > > tcmalloc: 68.81 > > > > but tcmalloc doesn't support mremap currently, so I cant test it. > > But Daniel's changelog implies strongly that tcmalloc would benefit > from his patch. Was that inaccurate or is this a difference between > his patch and yours? There is no big difference, except I fixed some issues. Daniel didn't post data for tcmalloc, I suppose it's potential mremap can make tcmalloc faster too, but Daniel can clarify. Thanks, Shaohua -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>