[Development] Proposal for "container-oriented deterministic memory manager"

[Konstantin Tokarev]

Oh, looks like you are going to learn about lots of other wonderful memory allocators soon. There is no real need to keep us informed about each of them (I guess most of interested folks are already well-aware of them), but please make sure you've studied prior art thoroughly before designing your own things.

07.01.2017, 20:59, "Phil Bouchard" <philippeb8 at gmail.com>:
> On 01/07/2017 12:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>  On 01/06/2017 10:37 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>  On 01/06/2017 08:05 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>  On 01/06/2017 07:17 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
>>>>>  Just to conclude I did try the attached benchmark and I get the
>>>>>  following on a x86_64 @ 2.40 GHz:
>>>>>
>>>>>  0: 61331143.40263957 allocations / second
>>>>>  1: 63644162.93924019 allocations / second
>>>>>  2: 177628727.5388474 allocations / second
>>>>>  3: 179850939.5413082 allocations / second
>>>>>  1 / 0: 103.7713621632905% boost
>>>>>  2 / 1: 101.2510431354494% boost
>>>>>
>>>>>  So the fast_pool_allocator is already pretty fast and I can only get a
>>>>>  1% speed boost by allocating big memory blocks. So it doesn't look
>>>>>  like
>>>>>  there is any way to make the fast_pool_allocator any faster.
>>>>
>>>>  Correction: I get a 11% speed boost with the -O3 flag:
>>>>
>>>>  0: 60387275.67636769 allocations / second
>>>>  1: 63133704.55951615 allocations / second
>>>>  2: 169169529.8609596 allocations / second
>>>>  3: 188535531.4062488 allocations / second
>>>>  1 / 0: 104.5480258090584% boost
>>>>  2 / 1: 111.447688931456% boost
>>>>
>>>>  So I am not sure if this is worth the trouble.
>>>
>>>  Did you know the optimized boost::fast_pool_allocator is 305% times
>>>  faster than the regular one?
>>>
>>>  0: 61407861.18875794 allocations / second
>>>  1: 62565419.96725326 allocations / second
>>>  2: 175311265.1512761 allocations / second
>>>  3: 187319938.708916 allocations / second
>>>  1 / 0: 101.8850335381934% boost
>>>  2 / 1: 106.8499155187076% boost
>>>  3 / 0: 305.0422781101666% boost
>>>
>>>  Is Qt using a similar pool allocator?
>>
>>  This means the optimized boost::fast_allocator is 470% times faster than
>>  the system "operator new":
>>
>>  0: 37334468.30116969 allocations / second (operator new)
>>  1: 58554420.18534816 allocations / second (boost::pool_allocator)
>>  2: 60072218.82146717 allocations / second (boost::pool_allocator)
>>  3: 164895686.9884111 allocations / second (boost::fast_pool_allocator)
>>  4: 175697519.1510296 allocations / second (boost::fast_pool_allocator)
>>  2 / 1: 102.5921162421463% boost
>>  4 / 3: 106.550706304027% boost
>>  4 / 0: 470.6040480708413% boost
>
> I just tried the "jemalloc" library and I get a 2576228000% speed boost
> compared to operator new:
>
> 0: 38816440.15979952 allocations / second
> 1: 62188319.91413037 allocations / second
> 2: 63819182.38692677 allocations / second
> 3: 174727730.5139267 allocations / second
> 4: 186025745.9632413 allocations / second
> 5: 1000000000000000 allocations / second
> 5 / 0: 2576228000% boost
> 5 / 1: 1608019000% boost
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Regards,
Konstantin