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

[Phil Bouchard]

On 01/07/2017 12:58 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> 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

Sorry, false alarm.  I think I was misusing jemalloc.  Now 
boost::fast_pool_allocator is the winner with a 332% speed boost 
compared to the normal boost::pool_allocator:

0: inf allocations / second (no allocation)
1: 54435751.65974607 allocations / second (jemalloc)
2: 77056206.33802707 allocations / second (boost::pool_allocator)
3: 80152739.05955189 allocations / second (boost::pool_allocator)
4: 236036104.0824805 allocations / second (boost::fast_pool_allocator)
5: 256307733.3169296 allocations / second (boost::fast_pool_allocator)
5 / 2: 332.6243861429787% boost
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pool-benchmark.cpp
Type: text/x-c++src
Size: 3919 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20170107/49d53208/attachment.cpp>