Does all this work with Purify? Linus
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Mike Belshe <mbel...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Dean McNamee <de...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Do we have numbers on how the 4 allocates compare on those tests (page >> cycler, etc)? > > > I do - I sent some of them around a few days ago. > > Summary: > jemalloc and tcmalloc are pretty close; where jemalloc is a little more > compact and tcmalloc is a smidge faster. Overall jemalloc looks pretty > darned good. The source to tcmalloc is more hackable though. > > The windows heap varies by platform, as they did a lot of work on the Vista > heap, including making LFH the default. But both jemalloc and tcmalloc > considerably outperform the windows heaps both on size and perf. > > Mike > > > > >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Mike Belshe<mbel...@google.com> wrote: >> > In an effort to make it easier to test debugging heaps and allocators, I >> > just landed a changelist which makes our allocators switchable at >> runtime. >> > Unlike Obama's plan for healthcare, this CL is about giving you more >> > choice. >> > From an environment variable, you can now switch between 4 different >> > allocators. >> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=tcmalloc // default - use TC Malloc >> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=jemalloc // use JEMalloc, the allocator >> also >> > used in firefox >> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=winheap // use the built in windows heap >> > set CHROME_ALLOCATOR=winlfh // use the low-fragmentation >> windows >> > heap >> > >> > This change also contains a fix to tcmalloc to more aggressively return >> > pages (in other words, actually return them sometimes). Without this >> fix, >> > Chrome grows but doesn't shrink. As a result, this change *DOES* have a >> > negative performance impact on chrome (we're now returning pages fairly >> > aggressively) >> > Good news: >> > - Our memory test shows a 4% drop (not terribly significant) >> > >> > >> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/vista-release-dual-core/memory/report.html?history=150&graph=commit_charge >> > Neutral news: >> > - The Moz page cycler shows no change: >> > >> > >> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/vista-release-dual-core/moz/report.html?history=150 >> > Bad news >> > - The JS page cycler shows a 3% drop. >> > >> > >> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/perf/xp-release-dual-core/morejs/report.html?history=150 >> > I'm working on this. >> > Let me know if you have problems or feedback. Also, if you do play >> around >> > with the allocator choices, let me know your experience. >> > Mike >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
