From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:38:41 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477377550 29716 195.159.176.226 (25 Oct 2016 06:39:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:39:10 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 Cc: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 25 08:39:02 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1byvNv-0006AF-Vw for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:38:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52208 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byvNy-0002TF-8t for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:38:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36663) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byvNp-0002TA-KD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:38:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byvNo-0005x2-Ol for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:38:49 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:38442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byvNl-0005vj-2r; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:38:45 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9441605BC; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:38:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id UKZd1VqQ9-yL; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E1516026B; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:38:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id GQeeR82PCeg6; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.153.178.162]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 101391601C6; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:38:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208753 Archived-At: Richard Stallman wrote: > > > Should we talk with them about putting in those hooks or other > > > suitable hooks? Then we could go back to the libc malloc. > > > I think we tried, and more or less failed. (That was in the contex= t > > of unexec, but the arguments are more or less similar.) > > How did it fail? Did they give it a strong try? It was more the other way around. People working on the glibc memory allo= cator=20 convinced me that the malloc hooks were a significant impediment to perfo= rmance=20 improvements within glibc, and that Emacs unexec didn't really need those= hooks=20 any more. Emacs was the only major user of that part of the old glibc API= . For those interested in GNU malloc performance improvements, a talk relat= ed to=20 the current effort is scheduled a week from Thursday in Santa Fe. Please = see: O'Donell C. linux and glibc: The 4.5TiB malloc API trace. LPC 2016.=20 https://linuxplumbersconf.org/2016/ocw/proposals/3921