From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Aligned blocks management: obsolete? Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:53 -0500 Message-ID: References: <4EE5B744.1090103@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1323715145 8545 80.91.229.12 (12 Dec 2011 18:39:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Antipov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 12 19:39:01 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RaAmB-0008OU-EY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:38:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39479 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaAmA-00033k-SB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:58 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47007) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaAm8-00033U-8i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaAm7-00085P-7l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:56 -0500 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:1629) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RaAm7-00085I-3x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:55 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAH5J5k5FxLI7/2dsb2JhbABDqwWBBoFyAQEEAVYjBQsLDiYSFBgNJIgbtSuLbQSIMZo0hFE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,340,1320642000"; d="scan'208";a="151995700" Original-Received: from 69-196-178-59.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([69.196.178.59]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 12 Dec 2011 13:38:54 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id AD5F9660D4; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:38:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4EE5B744.1090103@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Antipov's message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:11:48 +0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146677 Archived-At: > Is it still required to maintain the cache of aligned blocks > to workaround poor malloc behavior? I believe an attached > example should perform well (i.e. allocate ~4K blocks without > ~4K holes between them) on top of any non-ancient glibc (no > ideas about other system malloc implementations, BTW). I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting we change. If you're talking about BLOCK_PADDING (which we don't actually use right now since it defaults to 0), then we could probably just remove it, but I'm not sure what would be the benefit (other than the handful of source lines it removes, of course). Stefan