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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to